Security Requirements Analysis Report

Comprehensive Security Analysis with Interactive Dashboard

Author

Security Requirements System v2.0

Published

November 19, 2025

Generated: 2025-11-19 15:16:52 Report Version: 2.0 - Comprehensive Security Analysis

1. Executive Summary

This section provides a high-level overview of the security requirements analysis, presenting key findings, validation results, and an interactive dashboard for stakeholders and decision-makers. The executive summary enables rapid comprehension of the security posture, critical risks, control coverage, and compliance status without requiring detailed technical knowledge.

1.1. Purpose and Scope

Purpose

This document presents a comprehensive security requirements analysis for the proposed application, systematically mapping high-level business requirements to specific, actionable security controls aligned with multiple industry standards: OWASP Application Security Verification Standard (ASVS), NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5, and ISO 27001:2022. The analysis provides a complete security requirements specification that guides secure system design, implementation, and verification.

Scope

This analysis encompasses all functional requirements provided, delivering comprehensive coverage across multiple security domains:

Requirements Analysis: Systematic decomposition and security-relevant extraction from business requirements
Stakeholder Analysis: Identification of stakeholders, trust boundaries, and security responsibilities
Threat Modeling: Systematic identification and assessment of security threats using STRIDE methodology
Security Control Mapping: Mapping requirements to multi-standard security controls (OWASP ASVS, NIST SP 800-53, ISO 27001) with detailed implementation guidance
Compliance Requirements: Identification of regulatory and legal compliance obligations
Architectural Security: Security architecture recommendations and design patterns
Implementation Planning: Prioritized, phased implementation roadmap
Verification Strategies: Testing and validation approaches for security controls

The analysis provides both strategic guidance for security planning and tactical details for implementation teams.

1.2. Key Findings

This section summarizes the most critical results from the security requirements analysis, providing executives and stakeholders with immediate insight into the security posture and validation status.

Analysis Metrics

Validation Score: 0.84/1.0
Validation Status: ✅ Passed
Analysis Iterations: 1
Requirements Analyzed: 20

Application Summary

A web-based Multi-Tenancy Private Cloud Management Platform that enables users and administrators to create and manage isolated project workspaces (tenants), provision and govern cloud resources (VNFs, CNFs, applications, networks), enforce per-project and per-user policies, and provide unified monitoring, analytics, health & security checks, notifications and ticketing — all while maintaining strong isolation, auditability and administrative support capabilities.

The validation score reflects the quality and completeness of the security requirements across five dimensions: completeness, consistency, correctness, implementability, and alignment with business objectives. A score of 0.8 or higher indicates that the requirements are ready for implementation, while scores below this threshold may require refinement before proceeding.

1.3. Security Overview Dashboard

This interactive dashboard provides executive-level visualization of key security metrics and trends, enabling rapid assessment of the security posture through intuitive charts and data visualizations. The dashboard presents critical information across multiple dimensions: risk distribution, security control coverage, compliance status, implementation progress, and data quality metrics. For optimal viewing experience, render this document with Quarto to enable interactive chart functionality, allowing stakeholders to explore data dynamically and drill down into specific areas of interest.

Figure 1: Risk heat map showing threat distribution by likelihood and impact (1-5 scale).

Top 5 Highest Risks:

THR-003 (Critical) - Frontend Layer - Category: Information Disclosure - Likelihood: 4 | Impact: 4 - Description: Persistent or reflected XSS in the web SPA allows attackers to steal UI session tokens, perform actions as victims, or exfiltrate data from the portal.

THR-006 (Critical) - Application Services (Auth / Platform Admin) - Category: Spoofing - Likelihood: 4 | Impact: 4 - Description: Credential theft (phishing, credential stuffing) or weak password policies allow attacker to gain admin or cross-project access, impersonating privileged users for destructive actions.

THR-022 (Critical) - Edge Layer - Category: Denial of Service - Likelihood: 4 | Impact: 4 - Description: Large-scale DDoS attack saturates the edge WAF/load balancer or upstream resources, causing platform-wide outage or degraded provisioning/management capability.

THR-017 (High) - Observability & AI - Category: Information Disclosure - Likelihood: 4 | Impact: 3 - Description: Telemetry, logs or metrics inadvertently contain sensitive information (credentials, tokens, PII) that is stored in the metrics/logging backend and accessible to unauthorized users or external ML serv

THR-002 (High) - Edge Layer -> Internal Service Links - Category: Tampering - Likelihood: 3 | Impact: 4 - Description: Man-in-the-middle (MITM) or tampering between edge TLS termination and internal services (if internal traffic is unprotected), allowing request modification or credential exposure.

Figure 2: Security control distribution by standard (OWASP, NIST, ISO 27001).

Figure 3: OWASP ASVS control distribution by verification category (V1-V14).

Figure 4: Security control priority distribution (Critical/High/Medium/Low).

Coverage Metrics:

Total Security Controls Mapped: 63
- OWASP ASVS: 20 controls
- NIST SP 800-53: 23 controls
- ISO 27001: 20 controls
Requirements with Security Control Mapping: 72.0% (18/25)
Average Controls per Requirement: 2.5
Critical Controls: 22 (34.9% of total)
Requirements with Verification: 100.0% (25/25)
Recommended ASVS Level: L2 (Standard)

Figure 5: Compliance status across all applicable frameworks (Red-Amber-Green rating). Shows regulatory compliance (GDPR, HIPAA, PCI-DSS, etc.) and security standards (OWASP ASVS, NIST SP 800-53, ISO 27001).

Compliance Summary:

⚠️ OWASP ASVS: In Progress (Next Audit: N/A)
⚠️ NIST SP 800-53: In Progress (Next Audit: N/A)
⚠️ ISO 27001: In Progress (Next Audit: N/A)

Figure 6: Projected implementation timeline by phase and week (based on priority-based planning).

Implementation Timeline (Projected):

Phase 1 (Critical/High): 100% projected completion (Weeks 1-8)
Phase 2 (Medium): 100% projected completion (Weeks 9-16)
Phase 3 (Low/Ongoing): Continuous improvement and monitoring

Note: Timeline is based on priority-based planning and assumes steady implementation progress.

Validation Metrics:

Overall Validation Score: ✅ 0.84/1.0

Dimension Scores:

✅ Completeness: 0.80
✅ Consistency: 0.90
✅ Correctness: 0.85
⚠️ Implementability: 0.75
✅ Alignment: 0.90

Figure 7: Data quality and coverage metrics.

Traceability Matrix:

Total Requirements: 25
Linked to Threats: 25 (100.0%)
Mapped to Security Controls: 18 (72.0%)
With Verification: 25 (100.0%)

Data Quality: ✅ Excellent

2. Requirements Understanding

This section presents a comprehensive analysis of the functional requirements, extracting security-relevant information and establishing the foundation for the security requirements specification. Understanding the functional requirements is essential for identifying security implications, data sensitivity, trust boundaries, and security-critical components. This analysis transforms business requirements into security-aware specifications that inform threat modeling, control selection, and compliance assessment.

2.1. High-Level Requirements Analysis

The following high-level functional requirements have been identified and analyzed for security implications:

User registration and login with role-based access control and session management
Platform administrator registration and privileged admin workflows
Multi-project membership support with per-user, per-project role assignments
Per-user, per-project policy customization and policy inheritance
Project creation workflow with quota and resource availability checks
Resource provisioning and lifecycle management (deploy/destroy VNFs, CNFs, apps, networks)
Project credential management and granular access rules (secrets/keys)
Project isolation (multi-tenancy) at compute, network, storage and data planes
Integrated monitoring and analytics for cloud, network, infra and applications
AI-assisted fault detection and automated alerting/notification
Capacity monitoring and automated capacity warning system
Health and security scanning (vulnerability, misconfiguration, integrity checks)
Notification delivery and role/policy-based notification rules and dashboards
Ticketing system for project-to-platform and internal support workflows
Platform-wide dashboards for admins with full visibility and audit trails
Audit logging and retention for actions, configuration changes and access
Policy-driven automated remediation actions (optional/controlled)
API and CLI for automation and integration with external systems
Secure storage and handling of sensitive data (secrets, credentials, telemetry)
Compliance and reporting features (data residency, access reports, exportable logs)

2.2. Detailed Requirements Breakdown

Req ID	Requirement	Business Category	Security Sensitivity	Data Classification
REQ-001	User registration and login through the portal wit…	Authentication	High	Confidential
REQ-002	Platform administrator registration and onboarding…	Authorization / Administration	High	Restricted
REQ-003	Support registering users to one or more isolated …	Project Management / Authorization	High	Confidential
REQ-004	Per-user, per-project policy customization allowin…	Policy Management	High	Confidential
REQ-005	User-friendly cloud portal GUI to create, manage a…	User Experience / Administration	Medium	Internal
REQ-006	Project creation workflow where registered users c…	Provisioning / Resource Management	High	Internal
REQ-007	Cloud resource administration capability to deploy…	Infrastructure Provisioning	High	Confidential
REQ-008	Project credential and secrets management: per-pro…	Secrets Management / Data Protection	High	Restricted
REQ-009	Strict multi-tenant project isolation across compu…	Multi-Tenancy / Network Security	High	Confidential
REQ-010	Integrated monitoring and analytics for infrastruc…	Monitoring & Analytics	Medium	Internal
REQ-011	Automated AI-assisted fault detection and anomaly …	Monitoring / Automation	Medium	Internal
REQ-012	Automated capacity warnings and thresholds per res…	Capacity Management	Medium	Internal
REQ-013	Health and security system to run periodic and on-…	Security & Compliance	High	Internal
REQ-014	Automated notification system that flags security …	Notifications / Incident Management	Medium	Internal
REQ-015	Ticketing system integrated with user profiles, pr…	Support / ITSM	Medium	Internal
REQ-016	Platform administrators have read/write access to …	Administration / Access Control	High	Restricted
REQ-017	Audit logging of user actions, administrative oper…	Logging & Audit	High	Restricted
REQ-018	Role-based notification preferences and a portal d…	Notifications / UX	Low	Internal
REQ-019	APIs and CLI endpoints for creating projects, prov…	Integration / Automation	High	Confidential
REQ-020	Data protection measures including encryption at r…	Data Protection	High	Restricted
REQ-021	Automated or semi-automated remediation actions (e…	Incident Response / Automation	High	Internal
REQ-022	Dashboards for platform-wide analytics accessible …	Reporting / Analytics	Medium	Internal
REQ-023	Support for compliance and reporting: generate acc…	Compliance / Reporting	High	Restricted
REQ-024	Integration points for existing infrastructure: co…	Integration / Interoperability	Medium	Internal
REQ-025	Operational policies and controls such as role-bas…	Operations / Governance	Medium	Internal

2.3. Security Context and Regulatory Obligations

Applicable regulations and frameworks likely to apply include: GDPR (if processing personal data of EU residents) — data subject rights, lawful basis, data residency and DPIA considerations; Data protection laws like CCPA/CPRA where relevant; ISO/IEC 27001 for an ISMS and SOC 2 for operational security and trust service criteria (security, availability, confidentiality); NIST SP 800-53 / NIST Cybersecurity Framework for controls mapping; CIS Benchmarks for host/network hardening; PCI-DSS only if payment card data is processed (note: platform should avoid storing card data unless necessary); industry-specific regulations (e.g., telecom regulators, critical infrastructure controls) if platform hosts telco/network functions. Applicable obligations: implement strong identity and access management, encryption in transit and at rest, least privilege, logging and monitoring, incident response, data residency and retention policies, breach notification timelines, regular vulnerability scanning/patching, secure software development lifecycle and supply chain risk management.

2.4. Assumptions

System will be hosted on private cloud infrastructure managed by the platform operator (on-prem or operator-controlled cloud).
Users have internet access and modern browsers or CLIs to access portal and APIs.
Underlying compute, storage and network platforms expose APIs compatible with integration (e.g., OpenStack, Kubernetes, VMware, SDN controllers).
Tenants/projects are logical isolation domains; some customers may request stronger physical separation (to be negotiated).
Platform administrators are trusted personnel with higher privileges but subject to just-in-time approval and audits.
Telemetry and monitoring agents can be deployed on managed workloads and underlying hosts as needed.
AI/ML components for anomaly detection will be trained on operational telemetry and tuned to reduce false positives.
Users will follow acceptable use policies and security awareness guidance provided during onboarding.

2.5. Constraints

Must maintain strong multi-tenant isolation without relying on untrusted tenant-supplied code to modify platform control plane.
Integration is constrained to available APIs on customer-managed infrastructure; pre-built connectors must be developed for each supported platform.
Encryption key management must integrate with an approved KMS/HSM; keys cannot be stored in plaintext on the platform.
Audit log retention and storage capacity must meet regulatory and business retention periods and scale with tenant activity.
Platform must support role-based access control with fine-grained policies; legacy systems that lack RBAC may limit enforcement.
Automated remediation actions must have configurable risk thresholds and human-approval gating for high-impact operations.
Network topology and legacy network devices may restrict segmentation capabilities (e.g., limited VLANs, no microsegmentation support).
Operationally, upgrades and maintenance windows must be scheduled to avoid disrupting tenant SLAs; backward compatibility for APIs should be preserved where feasible.

3. Stakeholder Analysis

This section identifies and analyzes all stakeholders involved in or affected by the system, including users, administrators, external partners, and regulatory bodies. Stakeholder analysis establishes trust boundaries, defines security responsibilities, and identifies potential security concerns from different stakeholder perspectives. Understanding stakeholder relationships and trust boundaries is critical for designing appropriate access controls, authentication mechanisms, and data protection measures.

3.1. Identified Stakeholders and User Personas

Role	Privilege Level	Trust Level	Key Security Concerns
Platform Administrator	Admin	Trusted	Privilege escalation by malicious insiders, unauthorized access to sensitive project data, account compromise.
Project Leader	User	Trusted	Mismanagement of project resources, unauthorized project access, potential data leakage to other tenants.
Project Admin	Admin	Partially Trusted	Inadequate access control enforcement, potential for abuse of elevated privileges, poor policy adherence.
Project User	User	Partially Trusted	Unauthorized actions on project resources, credential theft, lack of knowledge regarding project policies.
External Service Integrator	Service Account	Partially Trusted	Insecure API integrations, data exposure due to insufficient permissions, lack of encryption for sensitive data.
Monitoring System	Service Account	Trusted	False positives leading to alert fatigue, inadequate response to genuine security incidents.
Notification System	Service Account	Trusted	Failure to deliver critical notifications, unauthorized access to user notification data.
Cloud Resource Connector	Service Account	Partially Trusted	Misconfiguration leading to resource exposure, lack of proper authentication mechanisms.
AI Anomaly Detection System	Service Account	Trusted	Inaccurate anomaly detection leading to unnecessary alerts, inability to adapt to new threats.
User Registration Portal	User	Untrusted	User impersonation, credential stuffing attacks, inadequate validation leading to unauthorized registrations.

3.2. Trust Model

Trust boundaries are established at multiple levels including the user interface, API gateway, and backend services. Security mechanisms enforcing these boundaries include multi-factor authentication for all users, role-based access control (RBAC) to ensure users can only access data and functionalities pertinent to their roles, and network segmentation that isolates project environments. For instance, Platform Administrators have access to all project data for management purposes, while Project Leaders can only access and manage their respective projects. The principle of least privilege is implemented by granting users the minimum access rights necessary to perform their tasks, significantly minimizing the risk of data exposure and privilege escalation. Automated monitoring tools are in place to detect anomalies and flag any unauthorized access attempts across trust boundaries, ensuring that stakeholders can only interact with the parts of the system necessary for their role.

4. System Architecture Analysis

4.1. Architectural Overview

A web-based multi-tenant private cloud management platform composed of a secured edge and frontend layer (web SPA and CLI), an API gateway and application service plane that implements project, policy, provisioning, monitoring, health/security and notification/ticketing workflows, a resilient data layer (identity, tenant metadata, audit logs, metrics TSDB, secrets vault/KMS), and an integration layer of cloud/infra connectors plus external services (email/SMS/webhooks). Users and CLIs access the system through a hardened load balancer/WAF to the API Gateway which enforces authentication/authorization before routing to core services. Provisioning and orchestration components interact with customer infrastructure connectors that call Kubernetes/OpenStack/VMware APIs. Monitoring and an AI anomaly engine consume metrics and emit alerts to the notification/ticketing subsystem and admin dashboards. Audit logs and encrypted secrets are stored in tamper-evident stores with KMS integration for encryption keys.

4.2. Architecture Diagram

4.3. Component Breakdown

Component	Responsibility	Security Criticality	External Dependencies
Edge Layer	Ingress protection and routing for user …	High	WAF/load balancer appliances, CDN (optional)
Frontend Layer	User-facing Web SPA, Admin UI and CLI/AP…	Medium	Browser ecosystems, OAuth2/OIDC providers (for SSO) optional
Application Services	Core business logic: API gateway & auth,…	Critical	OAuth2 identity providers / MFA provider, Third-party ticketing integrations (optional)
Data Layer	Persistent storage for identity, tenant …	Critical	Enterprise KMS/HSM, Relational DB or distributed datastore
Integration & Connectors	Adapters to underlying customer/private …	High	Kubernetes API, OpenStack/VMware APIs
Observability & AI	Collect, store and analyze metrics/logs;…	High	AI/ML frameworks, Metrics/Logging backends
External Services	Outbound communication services for noti…	Medium	Email/SMS providers, Webhook/CI endpoints

4.4. Data Flow Analysis

Users/CLIs connect via the Edge Layer to the API Gateway which authenticates and authorizes requests. Authenticated requests flow to core app services for project creation, policy evaluation and provisioning. Provisioning requests call Integration Connectors which translate actions to target platform APIs (Kubernetes/OpenStack/VMware); secrets are retrieved from the Vault (KMS-backed) when needed. Telemetry from managed infrastructure and agents is ingested by the Monitoring service into the Metrics TSDB and consumed by the AI Anomaly Engine which issues alerts to the Notification/Ticketing subsystem. Audit events from all services are streamed to the Audit Log Store for tamper-evident retention. Dashboards query the Metrics TSDB, Tenant DB and Audit store for visualizations and exports.

4.5. Attack Surface Analysis

Primary entry points: Web UI and API Gateway (high risk) — these expose authentication endpoints, project and provisioning APIs and must be protected with strong MFA, rate-limiting, input validation and RBAC. CLI/API tokens and automation endpoints (high risk) — require OAuth2, scoped tokens, short TTLs and granular scopes. Integration connectors to customer infra (high risk) — these hold credentials and can execute provisioning; enforce least-privilege credentials, rotation, and isolation. Secrets Vault and KMS access (critical) — highly sensitive, restrict to service accounts and protected by HSM/KMS policies. Monitoring ingestion endpoints and observability APIs (medium risk) — can be abused to exfiltrate telemetry; restrict visibility by role and encrypt telemetry. Admin console and privileged operations (high risk) — require just-in-time elevation, session recording and privileged session controls. External notification integrations (low-medium risk) — risk of data leakage via misconfigured webhooks or SMS; enforce signing and output filtering. Exposed risks also include supply-chain of connectors and third-party libraries; mitigate with SBOM, vulnerability scanning and secure CI/CD. Overall prioritized mitigations: strong identity and access controls, encryption in transit and at rest, extensive audit logging, network segmentation, least-privilege connectors, input validation and WAF protections.

5. Threat Modeling

This section presents a comprehensive threat analysis of the system architecture and functional requirements. Threat modeling systematically identifies potential security vulnerabilities and attack vectors, enabling proactive risk mitigation through the application of appropriate security controls.

5.1. Threat Modeling Methodology

This analysis employs the STRIDE threat modeling methodology, a systematic framework developed by Microsoft for identifying security threats across six categories:

Spoofing Identity: Threats involving impersonation of users or systems
Tampering with Data: Threats involving unauthorized modification of data or system components
Repudiation: Threats where users deny performing actions (lack of non-repudiation)
Information Disclosure: Threats involving unauthorized access to sensitive information
Denial of Service: Threats causing disruption or unavailability of system services
Elevation of Privilege: Threats allowing unauthorized access to privileged functions

For each identified threat, the analysis evaluates likelihood (attack complexity and exposure) and impact (potential damage to confidentiality, integrity, or availability) to determine overall risk level. The methodology ensures comprehensive coverage of security concerns across all system components and interfaces.

5.2. Threat Analysis and Risk Assessment

5.2.1. Threat Overview

The following table provides a quick reference of all identified threats. Detailed analysis including descriptions, mitigation strategies, and residual risk assessment (where available) is provided in the section below.

Threat ID	Component	Category	Risk Level	Likelihood	Impact
THR-003	Frontend Layer	Information Disclosure	Critical	High	High
THR-006	Application Services (Auth / Platform Admin)	Spoofing	Critical	High	High
THR-022	Edge Layer	Denial of Service	Critical	High	High
THR-002	Edge Layer -> Internal Service Links	Tampering	High	Medium	High
THR-004	Frontend Layer / Application Services (SSO)	Spoofing	High	Medium	High
THR-007	Application Services (RBAC / Policy Management)	Elevation of Privilege	High	Medium	High
THR-008	Application Services (Policy & Provisioning APIs)	Tampering	High	Medium	High
THR-009	Application Services / Data Layer (Audit Logs)	Repudiation	High	Medium	High
THR-010	Application Services / Frontend (Multi-Tenancy Requirement)	Information Disclosure	High	Medium	High
THR-011	Data Layer (Secrets/KMS/DB Backups)	Information Disclosure	High	Medium	High
THR-012	Data Layer (Metadata & Audit Stores)	Tampering	High	Medium	High
THR-013	Data Layer (Audit Logs)	Repudiation	High	Medium	High
THR-014	Integration & Connectors	Spoofing	High	Medium	High
THR-015	Integration & Connectors	Tampering	High	Medium	High
THR-017	Observability & AI	Information Disclosure	High	High	Medium
THR-018	Observability & AI	Tampering	High	Medium	High
THR-019	Observability & AI (Metrics ingestion)	Denial of Service	High	Medium	High
THR-023	Application Services (Provisioning APIs)	Denial of Service	High	Medium	High
THR-024	Frontend / CLI / Application Services	Spoofing	High	Medium	High
THR-025	Application Services (APIs / Project Definitions)	Tampering	High	Medium	High
THR-026	Data Layer / KMS	Information Disclosure	High	Medium	High
THR-027	Network / Project Isolation (Integration & Connectors)	Elevation of Privilege	High	Medium	High
THR-001	Edge Layer	Spoofing	Medium	Medium	Medium
THR-005	Frontend Layer	Tampering	Medium	Medium	Medium
THR-016	Integration & Connectors	Information Disclosure	Medium	Medium	Medium
THR-020	External Services (Email/SMS/Webhooks)	Information Disclosure	Medium	Medium	Medium
THR-021	External Services / Ticketing Integrations	Tampering	Medium	Medium	Medium
THR-028	Project Creation Requirement	Tampering	Medium	Medium	Medium

Total Threats Identified: 28

5.2.2. Detailed Threat Analysis

This section provides comprehensive analysis of each identified threat, including descriptions, mitigation strategies, and residual risk assessment (where controls have been evaluated). Threats are organized by risk level for prioritized review.

Critical Risk Threats

THR-003 - Frontend Layer

Category: Information Disclosure
Likelihood: High | Impact: High
Initial Risk Level: Critical
Description: Persistent or reflected XSS in the web SPA allows attackers to steal UI session tokens, perform actions as victims, or exfiltrate data from the portal.
Mitigation Strategy: Enforce strict input validation and output encoding, implement Content Security Policy (CSP), mark session cookies HttpOnly and Secure and use SameSite attributes, use templating frameworks that auto-escape, perform code reviews and automated SAST/DAST scans.
Controls Applied: CSP, HttpOnly cookies, Input validation/encoding, SAST/DAST
Control Effectiveness: High
Residual Risk Level: Low
Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-006 - Application Services (Auth / Platform Admin)

Category: Spoofing
Likelihood: High | Impact: High
Initial Risk Level: Critical
Description: Credential theft (phishing, credential stuffing) or weak password policies allow attacker to gain admin or cross-project access, impersonating privileged users for destructive actions.
Mitigation Strategy: Enforce strong password policies, mandatory MFA (hardware tokens for admins), perform credential stuffing detection, implement adaptive authentication, monitor anomalous admin logins and use step-up authentication for sensitive operations.
Controls Applied: MFA, Adaptive authentication, Password strength policies
Control Effectiveness: High
Residual Risk Level: Low
Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-022 - Edge Layer

Category: Denial of Service
Likelihood: High | Impact: High
Initial Risk Level: Critical
Description: Large-scale DDoS attack saturates the edge WAF/load balancer or upstream resources, causing platform-wide outage or degraded provisioning/management capability.
Mitigation Strategy: Use multi-layer DDoS protection (scrubbing centers/CDN), autoscaling edge capacity, WAF tuning and behavioral baselining, geo-fencing for management endpoints, and playbooks for failover and incident response.
Controls Applied: DDoS scrubbing, CDN/WAF, Autoscaling
Control Effectiveness: Medium
Residual Risk Level: High
Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

High Risk Threats

THR-002 - Edge Layer -> Internal Service Links

Category: Tampering
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
Initial Risk Level: High
Description: Man-in-the-middle (MITM) or tampering between edge TLS termination and internal services (if internal traffic is unprotected), allowing request modification or credential exposure.
Mitigation Strategy: Encrypt internal service-to-service traffic with mTLS, validate certificates (mutual TLS) end-to-end where possible, use strong cipher suites, secure edge management plane, and restrict management network access.
Controls Applied: mTLS, Network segmentation, Strong TLS cipher suites
Control Effectiveness: High
Residual Risk Level: Low
Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-004 - Frontend Layer / Application Services (SSO)

Category: Spoofing
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
Initial Risk Level: High
Description: Misconfigured OAuth2/OIDC SSO or insecure token validation allows an attacker to forge identity tokens and impersonate users (including admin), or replay tokens from other tenants.
Mitigation Strategy: Use proven OIDC libraries with strict token validation (aud, iss, exp), enforce PKCE for public clients, validate JWT signatures against known keys, require MFA for admin/privileged roles, implement strict session management and short-lived tokens.
Controls Applied: OIDC token validation, MFA, Short-lived tokens
Control Effectiveness: High
Residual Risk Level: Low
Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-007 - Application Services (RBAC / Policy Management)

Category: Elevation of Privilege
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
Initial Risk Level: High
Description: Broken or mis-implemented RBAC allows lower-privilege users to escalate to project admin or platform admin roles (e.g., via vulnerable role assignment APIs or insufficient role checks).
Mitigation Strategy: Design RBAC with least privilege and role separation, enforce server-side authorization checks on every API, use authorization libraries/policies (e.g., ABAC or policy engine like OPA), require admin approvals or multi-party approval for role changes.
Controls Applied: Server-side RBAC enforcement, Policy engine (OPA), Approval workflows
Control Effectiveness: Medium
Residual Risk Level: Medium
Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-008 - Application Services (Policy & Provisioning APIs)

Category: Tampering
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
Initial Risk Level: High
Description: Unauthorized modification of project policies, quotas or provisioning requests through API abuse, IDOR, or insecure direct object references, allowing attackers to change resource allocations or bypass controls.
Mitigation Strategy: Validate object access per-request (no client-controlled IDs without server validation), use parameterized queries, implement deny-by-default authorization checks, log and alert on policy changes, and require multi-factor approvals for quota increases.
Controls Applied: IDOR protection, Server-side authorization, Audit logging
Control Effectiveness: Medium
Residual Risk Level: Medium
Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-009 - Application Services / Data Layer (Audit Logs)

Category: Repudiation
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
Initial Risk Level: High
Description: Insufficient or tamperable audit logs allow malicious actors to repudiate actions (deny having done them) or hide activity; lack of immutable logging prevents incident investigations.
Mitigation Strategy: Send audit logs to an append-only tamper-evident store, protect log integrity with HMAC/signing and separate write-only access, replicate logs to an external SIEM, enable immutable retention and alerting on log deletion attempts.
Controls Applied: Tamper-evident logs, Immutable retention, External SIEM
Control Effectiveness: Medium
Residual Risk Level: Medium
Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-010 - Application Services / Frontend (Multi-Tenancy Requirement)

Category: Information Disclosure
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
Initial Risk Level: High
Description: Cross-tenant data leakage through application bugs, caching misconfigurations, templating errors, or improper filtering of tenant IDs, leading to exposure of tenant metadata or user data across project boundaries.
Mitigation Strategy: Enforce strict tenant separation at the service layer, include tenant ID in all access control checks, segregate caches and storage per tenant, perform multitenancy test cases, and run penetration tests focusing on tenant isolation.
Controls Applied: Tenant-aware access control, Per-tenant data partitioning, Multitenancy testing
Control Effectiveness: Medium
Residual Risk Level: Medium
Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-011 - Data Layer (Secrets/KMS/DB Backups)

Category: Information Disclosure
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
Initial Risk Level: High
Description: Compromise or misconfiguration of the datastore/backups or KMS leading to disclosure of encrypted secrets, credentials, or tenant data (e.g., stolen DB backups or compromised KMS keys).
Mitigation Strategy: Use enterprise KMS/HSM with strict key access policies and rotation, encrypt data at rest and backups with different keys, use access control and auditing for key usage, retain minimal plaintext in logs, and implement separation of duties for key management.
Controls Applied: Enterprise KMS/HSM, Encrypted backups, Key rotation and access controls
Control Effectiveness: High
Residual Risk Level: Low
Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-012 - Data Layer (Metadata & Audit Stores)

Category: Tampering
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
Initial Risk Level: High
Description: Unauthorized alteration of tenant metadata, quota state, or audit logs in the database allowing attackers to change historical records, quotas, or hide activities.
Mitigation Strategy: Apply database ACLs with least privilege, use tamper-evident or append-only storage for audits, implement integrity checks and log signing, enable database activity monitoring and block suspicious admin operations, and use multi-region replication with checksums.
Controls Applied: DB access controls, Tamper-evident storage, DB activity monitoring
Control Effectiveness: Medium
Residual Risk Level: Medium
Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-013 - Data Layer (Audit Logs)

Category: Repudiation
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
Initial Risk Level: High
Description: A compromised service account or admin deletes or forges audit entries, preventing reliable incident reconstruction and enabling attackers to hide actions.
Mitigation Strategy: Enforce separation of duty for accounts that can modify logs, restrict log deletion to a minimal set of operations with approvals, stream logs to immutable external systems, and use cryptographic signing of logs.
Controls Applied: Immutable logging, Separation of duties, Log signing
Control Effectiveness: Medium
Residual Risk Level: Medium
Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-014 - Integration & Connectors

Category: Spoofing
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
Initial Risk Level: High
Description: Compromise of integration/connector credentials (API keys, service accounts) permits attackers to impersonate platform connectors to underlying infrastructure (K8s/OpenStack/VMware) and create/destroy resources or exfiltrate data.
Mitigation Strategy: Use short-lived credentials and workload identity (e.g., OIDC for K8s), store credentials in a secrets vault with access controls, enforce least privilege for connector accounts, rotate credentials and audit connector activity, restrict connector management network access with ACLs and mTLS.
Controls Applied: Vault-based secrets, Short-lived credentials, Workload identity (OIDC)
Control Effectiveness: High
Residual Risk Level: Low
Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-015 - Integration & Connectors

Category: Tampering
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
Initial Risk Level: High
Description: Malicious or misrouted orchestration commands from connectors or compromised orchestration service modify network segmentation or firewall rules, causing lateral movement or external exposure of tenant workloads.
Mitigation Strategy: Enforce change control and authorization for network modifications, require multi-person approval for critical network changes, validate connector identity and commands, implement network microsegmentation and monitoring for unauthorized rule changes.
Controls Applied: Change control, Network microsegmentation, Connector authentication
Control Effectiveness: Medium
Residual Risk Level: Medium
Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-017 - Observability & AI

Category: Information Disclosure
Likelihood: High | Impact: Medium
Initial Risk Level: High
Description: Telemetry, logs or metrics inadvertently contain sensitive information (credentials, tokens, PII) that is stored in the metrics/logging backend and accessible to unauthorized users or external ML services.
Mitigation Strategy: Scrub PII and secrets from telemetry before ingestion, enforce field-level redaction, use RBAC for observability data, encrypt data at rest in TSDB/logging backends and restrict external ML service access, and perform automated detection of secret patterns.
Controls Applied: Log/metric scrubbing, RBAC for observability, Encryption at rest
Control Effectiveness: Medium
Residual Risk Level: Medium
Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-018 - Observability & AI

Category: Tampering
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
Initial Risk Level: High
Description: Adversarial input or poisoning of metrics/telemetry to confuse the AI anomaly engine, causing missed detection or false positives leading to disruptive automated remediation or ignored incidents.
Mitigation Strategy: Validate and sanitize telemetry inputs, apply anomaly detection robustness techniques and input validation, maintain separate training and operational pipelines, monitor for concept drift, and require human-in-the-loop for high-impact remediation actions.
Controls Applied: Telemetry validation, Human-in-the-loop, Model monitoring
Control Effectiveness: Medium
Residual Risk Level: Medium
Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-019 - Observability & AI (Metrics ingestion)

Category: Denial of Service
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
Initial Risk Level: High
Description: Flooding of the metrics/log ingestion pipeline or synthetic telemetry spikes that overwhelm storage/processing causing monitoring and alerting outages and blind spots.
Mitigation Strategy: Implement rate limiting and ingestion throttling, apply sampling and aggregation at the source, use autoscaling and backpressure mechanisms, provide tiered storage for hot/warm/cold metrics, and protect ingestion endpoints with authentication and network ACLs.
Controls Applied: Ingestion rate limiting, Backpressure/autoscaling, Authentication
Control Effectiveness: Medium
Residual Risk Level: Medium
Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-023 - Application Services (Provisioning APIs)

Category: Denial of Service
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
Initial Risk Level: High
Description: API abuse, unthrottled provisioning requests or scripted attacks exhaust orchestration resources, DB connections or backend quotas, preventing legitimate operations and causing cascade failures.
Mitigation Strategy: Implement API rate limiting, quotas per user/project, circuit breakers for downstream calls, request validation and backoff strategies, and monitoring/alerting for provisioning anomalies.
Controls Applied: Rate limiting, Per-tenant quotas, Circuit breakers
Control Effectiveness: Medium
Residual Risk Level: Medium
Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-024 - Frontend / CLI / Application Services

Category: Spoofing
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
Initial Risk Level: High
Description: API keys or long-lived tokens exposed in frontend code, browser storage, or CLI configuration allow attackers to impersonate service accounts or users to perform privileged actions.
Mitigation Strategy: Avoid embedding long-lived credentials in frontends, use ephemeral tokens and refresh flows, store CLI credentials encrypted and recommend hardware-backed keys for CLI access, rotate keys frequently, and monitor for leaked tokens.
Controls Applied: Short-lived tokens, Token rotation, Ephemeral credentials
Control Effectiveness: High
Residual Risk Level: Low
Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-025 - Application Services (APIs / Project Definitions)

Category: Tampering
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
Initial Risk Level: High
Description: SQL injection or other code injection vulnerabilities in APIs allow attackers to manipulate database contents, execute arbitrary queries, or run code on backend services.
Mitigation Strategy: Use parameterized queries/ORMs, input validation and whitelisting, escape outputs, perform SAST and DAST testing, apply least-privilege DB accounts, and enable DB activity monitoring.
Controls Applied: Parameterized queries, SAST/DAST, Least-privilege DB accounts
Control Effectiveness: High
Residual Risk Level: Low
Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-026 - Data Layer / KMS

Category: Information Disclosure
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
Initial Risk Level: High
Description: Misconfigured KMS or improper key usage (e.g., reuse of keys across tenants, improper access policies) leads to possible secret exfiltration or ability to decrypt sensitive data across tenants.
Mitigation Strategy: Use tenant-scoped keys or envelope encryption with per-tenant key separation, enforce strict IAM for key usage, log key usage and require approval for key exports, and perform periodic key policy audits.
Controls Applied: Per-tenant encryption keys, KMS IAM policies, Key usage auditing
Control Effectiveness: High
Residual Risk Level: Low
Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-027 - Network / Project Isolation (Integration & Connectors)

Category: Elevation of Privilege
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
Initial Risk Level: High
Description: Incorrect network segmentation or misapplied firewall/SDN rules allow an attacker to move laterally from one tenant/project environment to another, escalating privileges or accessing other tenants’ workloads.
Mitigation Strategy: Implement strict network microsegmentation, use tenant-dedicated VLANs or overlay networks, perform regular network config audits, use SDN controllers with RBAC and change management, and monitor east-west traffic for anomalies.
Controls Applied: Network microsegmentation, SDN RBAC, Network monitoring
Control Effectiveness: Medium
Residual Risk Level: Medium
Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

Medium Risk Threats

THR-001 - Edge Layer

Category: Spoofing
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: Medium
Initial Risk Level: Medium
Description: Attacker spoofs client IPs or request headers to bypass IP-based ACLs or geofencing at the edge, gaining access to APIs or bypassing rate limits.
Mitigation Strategy: Enforce TLS mutual authentication and client cert validation where applicable, use authenticated session tokens rather than IP ACLs, employ upstream source IP validation (proxy protocol), implement WAF rules to detect header/IP spoofing and anomaly detection for suspicious source patterns.
Controls Applied: WAF, mTLS, Proxy protocol / Source IP validation
Control Effectiveness: Medium
Residual Risk Level: Low
Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-005 - Frontend Layer

Category: Tampering
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: Medium
Initial Risk Level: Medium
Description: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) attacks cause authenticated users to perform unauthorized actions (e.g., create/destroy resources, change policies) via browser-based requests.
Mitigation Strategy: Implement CSRF tokens for state-changing endpoints, require SameSite cookies, use proper CORS policy with preflight checks, and avoid unsafe HTTP methods without protection.
Controls Applied: CSRF tokens, SameSite cookie
Control Effectiveness: High
Residual Risk Level: Low
Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-016 - Integration & Connectors

Category: Information Disclosure
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: Medium
Initial Risk Level: Medium
Description: Misconfigured connectors or overly permissive API calls expose inventory, topology or sensitive configuration data from customer infrastructure to unauthorized parties.
Mitigation Strategy: Apply least privilege to connectors, limit scope of inventory calls, mask or redact sensitive attributes in stored inventories, and require encryption in transit and at rest for connector data.
Controls Applied: Least privilege, Data masking, TLS
Control Effectiveness: Medium
Residual Risk Level: Medium
Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-020 - External Services (Email/SMS/Webhooks)

Category: Information Disclosure
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: Medium
Initial Risk Level: Medium
Description: Notification payloads (email/SMS/webhook) leak sensitive information or PII to third parties, or are sent to compromised endpoints causing data exfiltration.
Mitigation Strategy: Avoid including secrets/PII in notifications, use redaction, encrypt webhook payloads and sign them, validate webhook endpoints on registration, and implement escalation policies that avoid exposing sensitive details.
Controls Applied: Payload redaction, Signed webhooks, Endpoint validation
Control Effectiveness: Medium
Residual Risk Level: Medium
Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-021 - External Services / Ticketing Integrations

Category: Tampering
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: Medium
Initial Risk Level: Medium
Description: Third-party ticketing integrations or webhooks are compromised or misconfigured and are used to inject malicious content, alter ticket states or gain privileged platform information.
Mitigation Strategy: Harden third-party integrations with signed and authenticated webhooks, enforce minimal data sharing with external ticketing, implement input sanitization for ticket content, and maintain strict access controls for integration credentials.
Controls Applied: Authenticated/signed webhooks, Least-privilege integrations
Control Effectiveness: Medium
Residual Risk Level: Medium
Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-028 - Project Creation Requirement

Category: Tampering
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: Medium
Initial Risk Level: Medium
Description: Business-logic abuse or race conditions allow attackers to bypass quota/resource checks during project creation (e.g., rapid create requests or manipulated parameters), leading to resource exhaustion or unauthorized project creation.
Mitigation Strategy: Validate resource availability atomically, perform server-side checks and optimistic locking or transactions for quota enforcement, rate-limit project creation per user/tenant, and require approval workflows for large resource allocations.
Controls Applied: Atomic quota checks, Rate limiting, Approval workflows
Control Effectiveness: Medium
Residual Risk Level: Medium
Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

Risk Reduction Summary:

Critical Risk Reduction: 3 threats reduced from Critical to lower levels
High Risk Reduction: 19 threats reduced from High to lower levels
Residual Risk Distribution: 1 threats remain at Critical/High level

5.3. Risk Summary

The most critical threats are credential compromise and privilege abuse (THR-006, THR-007, THR-014), cross-tenant data leakage (THR-010), frontend token/secret theft via XSS (THR-003), infrastructure-level DDoS (THR-022), and tampering of provisioning/networking via connectors (THR-015). Overall the platform faces a high-risk posture if core controls are not implemented: authentication and RBAC weaknesses, multitenancy isolation flaws, secrets/KMS misconfigurations, and ingestion/observability abuse are the highest-impact vectors. Key attacker entry points include the edge/API gateway (DDoS, spoofing), authentication/SSO flows (credential theft, token forgery), integration connectors/service accounts (infrastructure compromise), and the frontend/browser (XSS, leaked tokens). Priority areas: 1) Enforce strong auth (MFA, short-lived tokens, OIDC best practices) and hardened RBAC/approval flows; 2) Protect and rotate secrets with enterprise KMS/HSM and vaults with per-tenant keying; 3) Harden the edge (DDoS protection, mTLS to internal services) and implement robust WAF rules; 4) Ensure multitenant isolation through server-side tenant checks and per-tenant data separation; 5) Protect observability pipelines (scrubbing, rate-limiting, model robustness) and ensure immutable audit logging. Implementing these prioritized controls will materially reduce critical risk and make remaining threats manageable through monitoring, incident response, and continuous testing.

6. Multi-Standard Security Requirements Mapping

This section maps each functional requirement to specific security controls from multiple industry standards: OWASP Application Security Verification Standard (ASVS), NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5, and ISO 27001:2022. This multi-standard approach provides comprehensive coverage across application-level, enterprise-level, and organizational-level security domains:

OWASP ASVS: Application-level security controls (code, APIs, authentication, session management)
NIST SP 800-53: Enterprise security controls (governance, risk management, incident response)
ISO 27001: Information security management controls (policies, procedures, organizational controls)

Requirements are prioritized based on risk assessment and compliance needs, with controls selected from the most appropriate standard(s) for each requirement type.

6.1. Recommended ASVS Compliance Level

Recommended Level: L2

Level 2: Standard

Recommended for most production applications. Provides comprehensive security coverage suitable for applications handling sensitive data or operating in regulated environments. Includes controls for authentication, authorization, data protection, and secure communications.

The recommendation considers factors such as:

Data sensitivity and classification levels
Regulatory and compliance requirements (GDPR, HIPAA, PCI-DSS, etc.)
Threat landscape and risk assessment from threat modeling
Business criticality and potential impact of security incidents

All security controls referenced in this document align with this recommended compliance level.

6.2. Requirements Mapping

This section maps each high-level requirement to specific security controls from multiple standards (OWASP ASVS, NIST SP 800-53, ISO 27001) with detailed descriptions, relevance explanations, and integration guidance. Controls are grouped by standard for clarity.

6.2.1. REQ-001: User registration and login with role-based access control and session management

OWASP ASVS Controls

V4 - Authentication Verification Requirements

Requirement: Verify that passwords are stored using a strong adaptive hashing function (e.g., bcrypt, scrypt, Argon2) with a per-password salt and appropriate work factor.

Relevance: This control ensures user credentials used during registration and login are stored securely, reducing risk of credential compromise and unauthorized access. It directly applies to authentication mechanisms used in user registration and login.

Integration Tips: Use a vetted library implementing Argon2/bcrypt with per-user salts and configured work factor based on current recommendations. Ensure password hashing is done server-side during registration and password changes, and never log raw passwords.

Verification Method: Review code or configuration showing adaptive hashing use; verify salts and work factor values; perform static analysis and inspect password storage in a test database.

Level: L1 | Priority: Critical

V2 - Session Management Verification Requirements

Requirement: Verify that sessions are expired after a sensible period of inactivity and absolute maximum session lifetime.

Relevance: Directly addresses session management by requiring session expiration policies to mitigate hijacking and unauthorized long-lived sessions for authenticated users.

Integration Tips: Configure application and token lifetimes (access/refresh tokens), enforce inactivity timeouts, and implement absolute session lifetime regardless of activity. Ensure session cookies have secure attributes.

Verification Method: Inspect session configuration, perform tests to confirm timeout behavior, and review token lifetimes and cookie flags in headers.

Level: L1 | Priority: Critical

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

IA-2

Requirement: The information system uniquely identifies and authenticates organizational users (or processes acting on behalf of organizational users).

Relevance: Establishes requirement to uniquely identify users and authenticate them during login, which is foundational for registration and role assignment. It supports enforcement of role-based access control by tying identities to roles.

Integration Tips: Implement unique user identifiers, integrate with identity providers if needed (SAML/OIDC), and ensure authentication flows (password, MFA) map to unique accounts for RBAC assignments.

Verification Method: Test authentication flows to confirm unique IDs are enforced; review identity store for uniqueness; inspect authentication logs for correct mapping of identities.

Priority: Critical

AC-2

Requirement: The information system manages information system accounts, including establishing, activating, modifying, disabling, and removing accounts.

Relevance: Directly relates to user registration/de-registration and lifecycle of accounts required for role-based access and session management. Ensures processes exist for account state changes.

Integration Tips: Implement automated account lifecycle workflows (provision/deprovision), administrative UI for activating/disabling accounts, and tie account state to session termination.

Verification Method: Review account management procedures, test account creation/modification/deactivation flows, and verify sessions are invalidated on deactivation.

Priority: High

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.9.2

Requirement: A formal user registration and de-registration process should be implemented to enable assignment of access rights.

Relevance: Mandates formal registration and de-registration processes which underpin secure onboarding/offboarding, role assignment, and access control enforcement for user login flows.

Integration Tips: Define documented processes and approvals for user registration/deregistration, automate workflows where possible, and integrate with RBAC role assignment during onboarding.

Verification Method: Audit registration/de-registration records, review workflow documentation, and sample test user onboarding/offboarding for compliance.

Priority: High

6.2.2. REQ-002: Platform administrator registration and privileged admin workflows

OWASP ASVS Controls

V5 - Access Control Verification Requirements

Requirement: Verify that access control checks are performed on the server side for all functionality that requires it and that they enforce principle of least privilege.

Relevance: Requires server-side enforcement of admin privileges and prevention of client-side bypasses, which is essential for secure privileged workflows.

Integration Tips: Implement centralized server-side authorization checks for admin APIs, perform role validation on each request, and include test coverage for access control enforcement.

Verification Method: Review server-side authorization code, perform access control testing (role-based tests), and use automated tests to confirm enforcement.

Level: L2 | Priority: Critical

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

AC-6

Requirement: The information system enforces the most restrictive set of rights/privileges or accesses needed by users (and processes) to perform their assigned functions.

Relevance: Privileged admin workflows require least privilege to limit blast radius; this control mandates minimal privileges for administrators and helps prevent privilege misuse.

Integration Tips: Implement role definitions with minimal permissions, use just-in-time elevation for privileged tasks, separate admin accounts from regular accounts, and log all privileged actions.

Verification Method: Review role definitions, test that admin accounts cannot perform non-authorized actions, and inspect privilege escalation controls and logs.

Priority: Critical

AU-2

Requirement: The information system determines and documents the types of events that the system will audit, which should include privileged user actions.

Relevance: Privileged admin workflows must be auditable; this control ensures privileged actions are logged for accountability and investigations.

Integration Tips: Configure audit logging to capture admin actions, include before/after state where possible, and ship logs to centralized secure storage with appropriate retention.

Verification Method: Inspect audit configuration, review samples of privileged action logs, and confirm logs include user, timestamp, action, and target.

Priority: High

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.9.4

Requirement: Access to systems and applications should be restricted based on the access control policy.

Relevance: Ensures that administrator access to platform components is restricted and controlled per policy; supports administrative workflow protections.

Integration Tips: Apply RBAC/ABAC controls for admin interfaces, enforce MFA for admin login, and segregate duties across admin roles to reduce risk.

Verification Method: Review access control policy, test administrative access restrictions, and verify MFA enforcement for admin accounts.

Priority: Critical

6.2.3. REQ-003: Multi-project membership support with per-user, per-project role assignments

OWASP ASVS Controls

V5 - Access Control Verification Requirements

Requirement: Verify that role-based access control is implemented correctly and that role membership and permissions are managed securely.

Relevance: Directly addresses RBAC implementation and management, which is central to per-user per-project role assignments and membership support.

Integration Tips: Implement role management UI with audit trails, validate role assignment boundaries per project, and enforce RBAC checks at resource access points.

Verification Method: Review role assignment workflows, inspect role permission data, and perform tests to ensure proper enforcement and isolation between projects.

Level: L2 | Priority: Critical

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

AC-3

Requirement: The information system enforces approved authorizations for logical access to information and system resources in accordance with applicable access control policies.

Relevance: Supports enforcement of per-user, per-project role assignments by mandating enforcement of approved access authorizations tied to resources (projects).

Integration Tips: Design authorization model that evaluates user, project context, and role; enforce checks centrally in APIs; maintain policy store per project for decisions.

Verification Method: Test access enforcement across project boundaries, review policy decision points, and validate denied/allowed scenarios for different roles.

Priority: Critical

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.9.1

Requirement: Access control policy should be established, documented and reviewed based on business and information security requirements.

Relevance: A formal access control policy is needed to define per-project and per-user role behaviors and membership rules across projects.

Integration Tips: Document project membership rules and role matrices, map business processes to RBAC policies, and review policy regularly with stakeholders.

Verification Method: Review access control policy documents and role matrices, check alignment with implemented access controls, and perform periodic reviews.

Priority: High

6.2.4. REQ-004: Per-user, per-project policy customization and policy inheritance

OWASP ASVS Controls

V5 - Access Control Verification Requirements

Requirement: Verify that authorization mechanisms are designed to permit flexible policies and support policy updates without introducing insecure defaults.

Relevance: Ensures the authorization system supports flexible, per-project policy customization and safe inheritance behavior without insecure fallback permissions.

Integration Tips: Design policy engine to support hierarchical policies and overrides, implement secure defaults (deny-by-default), and provide clear precedence rules for inheritance.

Verification Method: Review authorization engine design, test policy override and inheritance cases, and verify default-deny behavior in absence of explicit permissions.

Level: L2 | Priority: High

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

AC-5

Requirement: The organization separates duties of individuals to reduce the risk of malevolent activity without collusion.

Relevance: While focused on separation, AC-5 supports policy customization by enforcing controls on who can create or inherit policies within a project, enabling appropriate governance and oversight.

Integration Tips: Implement administrative roles for policy creation and separate them from operational roles; enforce approvals for policy overrides and document inheritance rules.

Verification Method: Review role definitions for policy management, audit policy change events, and test separation of duties controls in policy administration.

Priority: High

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.9.2

Requirement: A formal user registration and de-registration process should be implemented to enable assignment of access rights.

Relevance: Supports controlled assignment of per-project policies and inheritance by ensuring user access is provisioned correctly before policies apply.

Integration Tips: Ensure policy customization interfaces tie into user registration workflows and inheritance logic, and restrict who can assign policies.

Verification Method: Review policy assignment logs and test that inherited policies apply correctly when users are added or removed.

Priority: Medium

6.2.5. REQ-005: Project creation workflow with quota and resource availability checks

OWASP ASVS Controls

V7 - Business Logic Verification Requirements

Requirement: Verify that the application enforces resource limits and quotas to prevent abuse and resource exhaustion.

Relevance: Directly enforces quota checks during project creation to avoid resource exhaustion and ensure fair use across projects.

Integration Tips: Implement server-side quota validation during project creation, prevent race conditions on quota allocation, and queue or reject requests that exceed available resources.

Verification Method: Attempt project creation requests that exceed quotas, inspect enforcement logic, and review handling of concurrent provisioning attempts.

Level: L2 | Priority: High

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

PL-2

Requirement: Develop, document, and disseminate system and communications protection policy and procedures.

Relevance: Project creation workflows should be governed by documented policies and procedures that include quota and resource checks as part of provisioning governance.

Integration Tips: Embed quota checks into the project provisioning procedure, document allowed resource limits, and automate enforcement and exception handling per policy.

Verification Method: Review documented procedures, inspect automation enforcing quota checks, and perform provision-request tests that exceed quotas to confirm denial.

Priority: Medium

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.8.1

Requirement: Assets associated with information and information processing facilities should be identified and an inventory of these assets maintained.

Relevance: Resource availability and quotas depend on understanding and inventorying assets (compute, storage) to make informed allocation decisions during project creation.

Integration Tips: Maintain an up-to-date resource inventory and integrate it with project creation checks to validate availability and update quotas upon provisioning.

Verification Method: Inspect asset inventory, test project creation flows against inventory data, and review quota update transactions.

Priority: High

6.2.6. REQ-006: Resource provisioning and lifecycle management (deploy/destroy VNFs, CNFs, apps, networks)

OWASP ASVS Controls

V7 - Business Logic Verification Requirements

Requirement: Verify that state transitions and business transactions are handled correctly to prevent logic flaws, race conditions, and inconsistencies during operations.

Relevance: Ensures provisioning and destroy operations handle state changes reliably without race conditions (e.g., double-deploy, orphaned resources).

Integration Tips: Use transactional provisioning steps or orchestration that supports rollback on failure, implement idempotent APIs, and include consistency checks post-deployment.

Verification Method: Conduct concurrency and failure-injection tests on provisioning APIs and review orchestration logs for proper rollback and state transitions.

Level: L2 | Priority: Critical

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

CM-2

Requirement: Develop, document, and maintain under configuration control, a current baseline configuration of the information system.

Relevance: Provisioning and lifecycle management require baseline configurations for VNFs/CNFs/apps to ensure consistent secure deployments and controlled changes when creating/destroying resources.

Integration Tips: Define secure baseline images and configuration templates for VNFs/CNFs, store them in version-controlled repositories, and enforce their use in provisioning pipelines.

Verification Method: Review baseline configuration documents, inspect deployed instances for compliance, and perform configuration drift scans.

Priority: Critical

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.12.1

Requirement: Operating procedures should be documented, maintained and made available to all users who need them.

Relevance: Lifecycle operations (deploy/destroy) need documented procedures to ensure secure, repeatable provisioning and decommissioning of resources.

Integration Tips: Document provisioning and decommissioning workflows, include steps for secure data sanitization upon destroy, and integrate with automation for consistency.

Verification Method: Review operational procedures, observe provisioning/decommissioning runs, and verify data sanitization after resource destruction.

Priority: High

6.2.7. REQ-007: Project credential management and granular access rules (secrets/keys)

OWASP ASVS Controls

V6 - Sensitive Data Protection Verification Requirements

Requirement: Verify that application secrets and credentials are stored securely using an approved secret management mechanism and never hard-coded or stored in source code.

Relevance: Directly covers secure handling of project secrets/keys and prevents common mistakes like embedding secrets in code or configs.

Integration Tips: Integrate a secrets manager for project credentials, ensure applications retrieve credentials at runtime with short-lived tokens, and scan repositories for accidental secrets.

Verification Method: Perform secret scanning in code repositories, inspect runtime retrieval from secret manager, and verify no credentials are in source.

Level: L2 | Priority: Critical

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

IA-5

Requirement: The organization manages information system authenticators (e.g., passwords, tokens, asymmetric keys) by establishing, implementing, and maintaining controls for their lifecycle.

Relevance: Directly applies to management of project credentials (secrets, keys) by enforcing lifecycle controls and secure handling practices.

Integration Tips: Use dedicated secrets management solutions (KMS/HashiCorp Vault), automate rotation and revocation, and manage access through IAM policies tied to project roles.

Verification Method: Inspect secret storage configuration, verify rotation schedules, and test revocation and access controls for secrets.

Priority: Critical

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.10.1

Requirement: A policy on the use of cryptographic controls for protection of information should be developed and implemented.

Relevance: Requires cryptographic protection for secrets and keys used in projects and mandates a policy for their use, aligning with granular access rules.

Integration Tips: Define cryptographic policy for key strength, storage, and usage; ensure secrets are encrypted at rest and in transit and keys are stored in hardware-backed modules where possible.

Verification Method: Review cryptographic policy, inspect encryption configurations, and validate key management practices (HSM/KMS use).

Priority: Critical

6.2.8. REQ-008: Project isolation (multi-tenancy) at compute, network, storage and data planes

OWASP ASVS Controls

V5 - Access Control Verification Requirements

Requirement: Verify that multi-tenant applications enforce strict logical separation between tenants in all layers (UI, business logic, storage, caching) and do not allow data leakage.

Relevance: Specifically addresses multi-tenancy concerns and ensures logical separation across application layers to enforce project isolation.

Integration Tips: Design tenant-aware data models, include tenant ID checks on all data access paths, and segregate caches/sessions per tenant to avoid cross-tenant data exposure.

Verification Method: Perform targeted tests for tenant isolation, inspect data access paths for tenant ID enforcement, and review caching/session partitioning.

Level: L3 | Priority: Critical

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

SC-2

Requirement: The system partitions user functionality and data to separate users and prevent unauthorized access across partitions.

Relevance: Directly targets multi-tenancy isolation by mandating partitioning of functions and data to prevent cross-project access across compute, network, storage and data planes.

Integration Tips: Implement tenant/namespace isolation at orchestration layer, use network segmentation (VLANs/VRFs), and separate storage volumes per project with access controls.

Verification Method: Penetration tests for cross-tenant access, review segmentation rules, and verify that storage and compute isolation controls are enforced.

Priority: Critical

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.13.1

Requirement: Networks should be managed and controlled to protect information in systems and applications.

Relevance: Requires network management and controls that support tenant isolation, reducing risk of data leakage across projects.

Integration Tips: Use network policies, microsegmentation, and enforce tenant firewalls; apply monitoring for inter-tenant traffic and restrict administrative network access.

Verification Method: Review network configurations and policies, test for lateral movement between tenant segments, and monitor logs for cross-tenant flows.

Priority: Critical

6.2.9. REQ-009: Integrated monitoring and analytics for cloud, network, infra and applications

OWASP ASVS Controls

V10 - Logging and Monitoring Verification Requirements

Requirement: Verify that the application produces sufficient logging and that logs are aggregated to a central trusted location for analysis and alerting.

Relevance: Directly supports integrated monitoring/analytics by requiring sufficient application logs and central aggregation for analysis across domains.

Integration Tips: Instrument applications and infrastructure with structured logs, forward logs to a secure central platform with access controls, and ensure time synchronization for correlation.

Verification Method: Review logging instrumentation, confirm central aggregation and secure transport, and test correlation across multiple data sources.

Level: L2 | Priority: High

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

AU-6

Requirement: The organization reviews and analyzes information system audit records and reports findings to designated personnel.

Relevance: Supports integrated monitoring and analytics by mandating review and analysis of audit records from cloud, network, infra, and applications to detect anomalies.

Integration Tips: Aggregate logs centrally (SIEM/analytics platform), configure alerts for anomalies, and implement dashboards for cross-domain visibility.

Verification Method: Verify log aggregation, review analytics rules, and check incident reports generated from monitoring outputs.

Priority: High

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.12.4

Requirement: Event logs recording user activities, exceptions and information security events should be produced, kept and regularly reviewed.

Relevance: Mandates logging and monitoring across systems which is foundational to integrated monitoring and analytics for varied domains (cloud, network, infra).

Integration Tips: Implement centralized logging, ensure critical services emit structured logs, and schedule periodic reviews and automated analytics to detect issues.

Verification Method: Inspect logging configuration, check retention and log review procedures, and review alerts/dashboards produced by analytics.

Priority: High

6.2.10. REQ-010: AI-assisted fault detection and automated alerting/notification

OWASP ASVS Controls

V10 - Logging and Monitoring Verification Requirements

Requirement: Verify that the application integrates with alerting and incident response systems so that detected issues generate actionable alerts to responsible parties.

Relevance: Directly ensures AI-detected faults produce actionable alerts and integrate with incident management systems for notification and response.

Integration Tips: Integrate AI alerts with ticketing and incident systems (webhooks/alerts), include context in alerts (runbooks), and implement rate-limiting and deduplication to avoid alert fatigue.

Verification Method: Trigger synthetic faults to validate alert generation and workflow integration, and review alert contents for sufficient context.

Level: L2 | Priority: High

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

SI-4

Requirement: The organization monitors the information system to detect attacks and indicators of potential attacks or other security incidents.

Relevance: Monitoring for faults and anomalies using AI aligns with SI-4’s requirement to monitor systems and detect potential incidents, enabling automated alerting.

Integration Tips: Feed telemetry and logs into ML/AI models within a monitored platform, tune detection thresholds, and implement secure pipelines for model inputs to avoid poisoning.

Verification Method: Validate monitoring coverage, review detection model performance metrics, and test alerting workflows triggered by AI-detected events.

Priority: High

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.12.4

Requirement: Event logs recording user activities, exceptions and information security events should be produced, kept and regularly reviewed.

Relevance: Provides foundation for feeding data into AI detection systems and ensuring events are logged and reviewed, enabling credible automated alerting.

Integration Tips: Ensure high-quality telemetry collection and retention for training and real-time inference; implement controls for model validation and human-in-the-loop escalation.

Verification Method: Review data ingestion pipelines, validate event types fed into AI models, and inspect alerting logs and escalations.

Priority: Medium

6.2.11. REQ-011: Capacity monitoring and automated capacity warning system

OWASP ASVS Controls

V10 - Logging and Monitoring Verification Requirements

Requirement: Verify that the application exposes necessary metrics and integrates with monitoring systems to provide alerts on thresholds and anomalous conditions.

Relevance: Requires exposure of metrics and integration with monitoring systems for capacity alerting and automated warnings.

Integration Tips: Instrument services with resource usage metrics, export to monitoring systems (Prometheus, CloudWatch), and configure thresholds/alerting rules for capacity events.

Verification Method: Check metric endpoints and exported metrics, validate alert rules trigger under simulated load, and review alert history.

Level: L2 | Priority: High

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

CM-8

Requirement: The organization develops and maintains an inventory of information system components that accurately reflects the current information system.

Relevance: Accurate component inventory supports capacity monitoring by providing authoritative data on resources to measure capacity and forecast usage.

Integration Tips: Automate inventory collection from orchestration and cloud APIs, integrate with capacity analytics to produce warnings, and update inventory on provisioning/decommissioning.

Verification Method: Compare inventory against actual resources, test integration between inventory and capacity monitoring, and review generated warnings for accuracy.

Priority: Medium

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.12.1

Requirement: Operating procedures should be documented, maintained and made available to all users who need them.

Relevance: Operational procedures should include capacity monitoring responsibilities and automated warning processes to ensure continuity of services.

Integration Tips: Document capacity thresholds and escalation paths, automate capacity checks and notifications, and assign responsibilities for capacity planning.

Verification Method: Review procedures and threshold definitions, test automated warnings by simulating high utilization, and review escalation logs.

Priority: Medium

6.2.12. REQ-012: Health and security scanning (vulnerability, misconfiguration, integrity checks)

OWASP ASVS Controls

V6 - Sensitive Data Protection Verification Requirements

Requirement: Verify that integrity checks are implemented for critical components and that tamper detection mechanisms exist where appropriate.

Relevance: Ensures integrity checks and tamper detection are present for critical components, complementing vulnerability and misconfiguration scanning.

Integration Tips: Implement file/system integrity monitoring, sign or hash critical artifacts, and integrate integrity alerts into security monitoring.

Verification Method: Review integrity monitoring configuration, test tamper detection by modifying controlled files, and verify alerts are generated.

Level: L2 | Priority: High

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

RA-5

Requirement: The organization scans for vulnerabilities in the information system and hosted applications, and remediates discovered vulnerabilities in accordance with organizational policies and procedures.

Relevance: Directly addresses vulnerability scanning and remediation across infrastructure, applications, and services to maintain health and security posture.

Integration Tips: Implement regular automated vulnerability scans, prioritize findings by severity, and integrate results into ticketing for tracked remediation.

Verification Method: Review scan schedules and reports, validate remediation tickets and patch timelines, and verify re-scans show resolved findings.

Priority: Critical

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.12.6

Requirement: Information about technical vulnerabilities of information systems being used should be obtained in a timely fashion, the organization’s exposure evaluated, and appropriate measures taken to address the associated risk.

Relevance: Mandates organization’s vulnerability management process covering identification, evaluation and treatment of vulnerabilities, applicable to health/security scanning.

Integration Tips: Subscribe to vulnerability feeds, run scheduled scans and integrity checks, and maintain remediation workflows aligned with risk assessment.

Verification Method: Inspect vulnerability management process, scan results, and evidence of remediation and risk acceptance where applicable.

Priority: High

6.2.13. REQ-013: Notification delivery and role/policy-based notification rules and dashboards

OWASP ASVS Controls

V10 - Logging and Monitoring Verification Requirements

Requirement: Verify that the application integrates with alerting and incident response systems so that detected issues generate actionable alerts to responsible parties.

Relevance: Ensures notifications are actionable and routed to responsible roles/policies, supporting dashboards and incident workflows.

Integration Tips: Integrate notification system with identity and role directory to resolve recipients, include context in notifications, and implement role-based suppression/aggregation.

Verification Method: Test role-based alert routing, validate alerts contain context and links to dashboards, and review incident handling steps.

Level: L2 | Priority: High

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

IR-6

Requirement: The organization requires personnel to report suspected incidents to designated personnel or authorities.

Relevance: Supports organized reporting and delivery of notifications to designated roles; ensures incidents are escalated as per policy and role assignments.

Integration Tips: Define notification recipients per incident severity, integrate automated alerts into reporting workflows, and ensure SLAs and escalation paths are documented.

Verification Method: Review incident reporting workflows, test simulated incidents to verify notifications and escalations, and inspect logs of incident reports.

Priority: High

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.7.2

Requirement: Employees should be aware of and fulfill their information security responsibilities.

Relevance: Role-based notifications and dashboards rely on clear responsibilities and ensuring users receive relevant security and operational notifications per role.

Integration Tips: Map notification rules to role responsibilities, ensure opt-in/opt-out are governed by policy, and provide role-specific dashboards with appropriate access controls.

Verification Method: Review role mappings and notification rules, test delivery to role-based recipients, and audit dashboard access controls.

Priority: Medium

6.2.14. REQ-014: Ticketing system for project-to-platform and internal support workflows

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

MP-6

Requirement: The organization sanitizes or destroys information system media containing Federal information before disposal or reuse.

Relevance: Tickets may contain sensitive data; processes must ensure that attachments or exported ticket data are sanitized or handled securely to prevent data leakage.

Integration Tips: Implement ticket redaction policies, restrict attachments that contain secrets, and enforce retention and sanitization for exported ticket data.

Verification Method: Inspect ticket data handling policies, review samples for redaction, and verify sanitization of ticket exports.

Priority: Medium

AU-6

Requirement: The organization reviews and analyzes information system audit records and reports findings to designated personnel.

Relevance: Ticketing systems should integrate with audit/reporting to enable support workflows to be reviewed and audited for compliance and security incidents.

Integration Tips: Log ticket actions (access, updates) to audit systems, correlate tickets with incident logs, and provide dashboards for auditors and managers.

Verification Method: Review audit logs from ticketing system, test correlation between tickets and incident logs, and verify audit reports are produced.

Priority: Medium

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.12.1

Requirement: Operating procedures should be documented, maintained and made available to all users who need them.

Relevance: Ticketing workflows are operational procedures that must be documented to ensure consistent support response and secure handling of requests between projects and platform teams.

Integration Tips: Document ticketing processes including access controls, data handling in tickets (sensitive info redaction), and escalation rules; integrate ticketing with RBAC for visibility.

Verification Method: Review documented ticketing procedures, sample tickets for policy adherence, and test access restrictions on ticket contents.

Priority: Medium

6.2.15. REQ-015: Platform-wide dashboards for admins with full visibility and audit trails

OWASP ASVS Controls

V10 - Logging and Monitoring Verification Requirements

Requirement: Verify that the application produces sufficient logging and that logs are aggregated to a central trusted location for analysis and alerting.

Relevance: Supports centralized data for admin dashboards and audit trails enabling cross-system visibility and analysis.

Integration Tips: Ensure logs are structured and tagged with metadata (project, user, role), provide secure APIs for dashboards to query logs, and implement access logging for dashboard views.

Verification Method: Validate central aggregation, metadata tagging, and test dashboards for comprehensive visibility and correct filtering.

Level: L2 | Priority: High

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

AU-2

Requirement: The information system determines and documents the types of events that the system will audit, which should include privileged user actions.

Relevance: Dashboards for admins require underlying audit events and trails to present full visibility; capturing privileged actions is specifically required.

Integration Tips: Ensure all privileged operations emit structured audit events, create secure dashboards with role-based access, and allow drill-down to raw logs for investigations.

Verification Method: Review audit event catalog, verify dashboard inclusion of privileged events, and test role-based access to dashboards.

Priority: High

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.12.4

Requirement: Event logs recording user activities, exceptions and information security events should be produced, kept and regularly reviewed.

Relevance: Establishes requirement for logs and reviews that feed admin dashboards and audit trails across the platform.

Integration Tips: Implement centralized logging pipeline, secure dashboards with MFA and RBAC, and ensure logs are tamper-evident and retained according to policy.

Verification Method: Inspect logs feeding dashboards, test access controls on dashboards, and review retention/tamper-evidence controls.

Priority: High

6.2.16. REQ-016: Audit logging and retention for actions, configuration changes and access

OWASP ASVS Controls

V10 - Logging and Monitoring Verification Requirements

Requirement: Verify that logs are protected from tampering, including secure transmission, storage, and access controls to prevent unauthorized modification.

Relevance: Ensures integrity and protection of audit logs for reliable investigation of actions, configuration changes, and access.

Integration Tips: Use append-only storage or WORM, employ cryptographic signing of logs, secure transport (TLS) to log collectors, and limit access via RBAC.

Verification Method: Inspect log signing and immutability controls, attempt authorized/unauthorized modifications in test environments, and review access logs for log stores.

Level: L2 | Priority: Critical

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

AU-11

Requirement: The organization retains audit records for a defined time period to provide support for after-the-fact investigations of security incidents and to meet regulatory requirements.

Relevance: Directly addresses audit log retention requirements ensuring logs of actions, configuration changes, and access are kept for investigations and compliance.

Integration Tips: Define retention periods per log type and regulatory needs, implement immutable storage for logs, and secure log access controls and archival processes.

Verification Method: Review retention policies, inspect storage configurations for immutability, and verify retention via sample logs spanning required periods.

Priority: Critical

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.12.4

Requirement: Event logs recording user activities, exceptions and information security events should be produced, kept and regularly reviewed.

Relevance: Mandates creation and review of logs; combined with AU-11 this ensures logs are retained and reviewed appropriately for actions/config changes/access.

Integration Tips: Implement centralized log storage with access controls, schedule regular log reviews, and document retention and purge procedures aligning with compliance requirements.

Verification Method: Inspect log retention configuration, review periodic log review records, and verify deletion/purge processes respect retention policy.

Priority: High

6.2.17. REQ-017: Policy-driven automated remediation actions (optional/controlled)

OWASP ASVS Controls

V7 - Business Logic Verification Requirements

Requirement: Verify that automated business logic actions include safeguards to prevent unintended consequences and provide auditability and manual override where appropriate.

Relevance: Specifically targets safety and auditability of automated remediation actions, ensuring safeguards and overrides are implemented to prevent incorrect automated changes.

Integration Tips: Implement policy engine with simulated dry-run mode, require approvals for high-risk automations, and maintain audit trails and rollback mechanisms for automated changes.

Verification Method: Review safeguards in automation workflows, perform dry-run tests, and verify audit records and manual override controls function as intended.

Level: L3 | Priority: High

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

IR-4

Requirement: The organization implements incident handling capability for detected incidents including containment, eradication, and recovery actions.

Relevance: Automated remediation must align with incident handling processes to ensure containment and recovery are conducted safely and under control.

Integration Tips: Define safe, policy-driven automated remediation playbooks, require human approval for high-impact actions, and log all automated remediation steps for review.

Verification Method: Test automated remediation in controlled environment, review playbook definitions, and verify logging of actions and rollbacks.

Priority: High

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.16.1

Requirement: Responsibilities and procedures for incident management should be established to ensure a quick, effective and orderly response to information security incidents.

Relevance: Automated remediation must be governed by incident management procedures to ensure actions are appropriate, auditable, and can be overridden if needed.

Integration Tips: Integrate automated remediation into incident procedures with defined thresholds and approval gates, maintain runbooks and escalation paths, and implement rollback capability.

Verification Method: Review incident management integration, test automated responses with simulated incidents, and confirm logging and manual override capabilities.

Priority: High

6.2.18. REQ-018: API and CLI for automation and integration with external systems

OWASP ASVS Controls

V8 - API Security Verification Requirements

Requirement: Verify that APIs implement strong authentication and authorization checks for every request and enforce least privilege.

Relevance: Directly applies to API/CLI security by mandating per-request authN/authZ and least privilege enforcement to prevent unauthorized automation access.

Integration Tips: Implement token-based auth (OAuth2 with scopes), ensure tokens are scoped to least privilege, and validate authorization per API call with context (project, user, role).

Verification Method: Perform API testing for authentication/authorization bypasses, review token scopes and issuance policies, and check logs for unauthorized attempts.

Level: L2 | Priority: Critical

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

SC-7

Requirement: The information system monitors and controls communications at the external boundary and key internal boundaries to ensure protection of organizational systems.

Relevance: APIs and CLIs expose interfaces across boundaries; SC-7 mandates control and monitoring of these communications to secure integrations with external systems.

Integration Tips: Restrict API/CLI access via network controls, use mutual TLS for external integrations, and monitor API endpoints for anomalous activity.

Verification Method: Review network controls for API endpoints, test mutual authentication, and inspect monitoring/alerts for API traffic.

Priority: High

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.13.2

Requirement: Policies and procedures should be established to protect information transferred within the organization and with external parties.

Relevance: APIs/CLIs enable information transfer; policies ensure data exchanged with external systems is protected and compliant.

Integration Tips: Define data handling and transfer policies, enforce encryption in transit (TLS), and require contractual protections for external integrations.

Verification Method: Review information transfer policies, inspect TLS configurations, and audit external integration agreements.

Priority: High

6.2.19. REQ-019: Secure storage and handling of sensitive data (secrets, credentials, telemetry)

OWASP ASVS Controls

V6 - Sensitive Data Protection Verification Requirements

Requirement: Verify that sensitive data is protected in transit and at rest using appropriate cryptography and that keys are managed securely.

Relevance: Directly requires encryption of sensitive secrets/credentials and telemetry and proper key management for secure handling.

Integration Tips: Use TLS for telemetry ingestion, encrypt storage volumes or use encrypted object stores for secrets, and use centralized KMS with rotation policies.

Verification Method: Review encryption usage in configs, inspect TLS certificates and key stores, and verify key rotation and access controls.

Level: L2 | Priority: Critical

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

SC-13

Requirement: The information system implements cryptographic mechanisms to prevent unauthorized disclosure and modification of information.

Relevance: Mandates cryptographic protections for sensitive data such as secrets and telemetry to ensure confidentiality and integrity in storage and transit.

Integration Tips: Encrypt sensitive data at rest and in transit using strong algorithms and key management, segregate telemetry data access, and restrict key access via IAM.

Verification Method: Inspect encryption configurations, verify key management practices, and perform tests to attempt unauthorized data access.

Priority: Critical

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.10.1

Requirement: A policy on the use of cryptographic controls for protection of information should be developed and implemented.

Relevance: Requires policies guiding cryptographic use for storing and handling sensitive data like secrets and telemetry, ensuring consistent implementation.

Integration Tips: Develop cryptography policy covering algorithms, key sizes, lifecycle, and approved KMS implementations; ensure adherence across systems.

Verification Method: Review cryptography policy, inspect implementation across data stores, and validate key management.

Priority: High

6.2.20. REQ-020: Compliance and reporting features (data residency, access reports, exportable logs)

OWASP ASVS Controls

V10 - Logging and Monitoring Verification Requirements

Requirement: Verify that logs can be exported securely and that access to exported logs is controlled and auditable.

Relevance: Ensures logs and access reports are exportable in a secure, auditable manner supporting compliance needs like data residency and reporting.

Integration Tips: Provide secure export endpoints with RBAC, encrypt exported log packages, and include metadata for residency and access controls in exports.

Verification Method: Test secure export process, verify export contains required metadata, and review access logs for export actions.

Level: L2 | Priority: High

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

AU-8

Requirement: The system uses internal system clocks to generate time stamps for audit records and synchronize system clocks to an authoritative time source.

Relevance: Accurate time-stamped logs are essential for compliance reporting and exportable logs to ensure event ordering and forensic value.

Integration Tips: Ensure all systems synchronize to NTP, include time stamps in exported logs and reports, and validate time consistency across regions.

Verification Method: Check NTP/synchronization configs, review timestamps in sample logs, and test cross-region event correlation.

Priority: Medium

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.18.1

Requirement: The organization shall identify and document applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual requirements and the organization’s approach to meeting those requirements.

Relevance: Compliance and reporting for data residency and exports require identifying legal requirements and documenting controls to meet them.

Integration Tips: Map data residency laws to project locations, implement data localization controls, and provide exportable reports and logs for audits and regulatory requests.

Verification Method: Review compliance mappings, check data localization controls in configuration, and validate that exportable reports/logs meet regulatory needs.

Priority: High

6.3. Cross-Functional Security Controls

The following controls apply globally across all system components:

Centralized Logging and Monitoring

Description: Produce structured logs across applications, infrastructure, and network; aggregate logs into a central trusted location for analysis, correlation, and alerting.

Applies to: Integrated monitoring and analytics for cloud, network, infra and applications, AI-assisted fault detection and automated alerting/notification, Capacity monitoring and automated capacity warning system, Audit logging and retention for actions, configuration changes and access, Platform-wide dashboards for admins with full visibility and audit trails, Notification delivery and role/policy-based notification rules and dashboards, Ticketing system for project-to-platform and internal support workflows

Implementation Guidance: Instrument all components with structured logs and consistent metadata (user, project, role, component, timestamp), forward logs over TLS to a tamper-evident central platform (SIEM), apply retention and access controls, and integrate with analytics/alerting and ticketing systems.

Encryption and Key Management

Description: Use cryptographic protection for data at rest and in transit and centralized, policy-driven key management to protect secrets, credentials, and telemetry.

Applies to: Project credential management and granular access rules (secrets/keys), Secure storage and handling of sensitive data (secrets, credentials, telemetry), Project isolation (storage/data plane), Compliance and reporting features (exportable logs)

Implementation Guidance: Adopt an enterprise KMS/HSM for key storage, enforce TLS for all communications, encrypt sensitive stores and backups, define key rotation and access policies, and ensure keys are accessible only via least-privilege IAM roles.

Role-Based Access Control and Least Privilege

Description: Implement RBAC with defined roles, separation of duties, and enforcement of least privilege across APIs, UIs, and automation interfaces.

Applies to: User registration and login with role-based access control and session management, Platform administrator registration and privileged admin workflows, Multi-project membership support with per-user, per-project role assignments, Notification delivery and role/policy-based notification rules and dashboards, API and CLI for automation and integration with external systems

Implementation Guidance: Define role matrices per project, centralize authorization checks, implement server-side enforcement for every request, use just-in-time elevation for high-risk tasks, and audit role changes.

Secure Development and Operational Procedures

Description: Documented operational procedures, secure baseline configurations, and change control to ensure secure provisioning, lifecycle management, and automated remediation are safe and auditable.

Applies to: Resource provisioning and lifecycle management (deploy/destroy VNFs, CNFs, apps, networks), Project creation workflow with quota and resource availability checks, Policy-driven automated remediation actions (optional/controlled), Health and security scanning (vulnerability, misconfiguration, integrity checks)

Implementation Guidance: Maintain version-controlled baselines, document runbooks and automation playbooks, implement change-control approvals for critical changes, and include rollback/dry-run capabilities in automation.

6.4. Requirements Traceability Overview

This section demonstrates complete traceability from high-level requirements through threats to security controls and verification methods.

Coverage Summary: Traceability matrix contains 25 requirements. 25 requirements (100.0%) linked to threats. 18 requirements (72.0%) mapped to security controls (OWASP ASVS, NIST SP 800-53, ISO 27001). Coverage: Partial.

Sample Traceability Mappings

The following table shows traceability for high-priority requirements:

Req ID	Requirement	Threats	Security Controls	Standards	Priority	Verification
REQ-001	User registration and login through the …	10 threats	5 controls	ISO27001, NIST, OWASP	Critical	Audit registration/de-registration records, review workflow documentation, and sample test user onboarding/offboarding for compliance.
REQ-002	Platform administrator registration and …	8 threats	4 controls	ISO27001, NIST, OWASP	Critical	Review server-side authorization code, perform access control testing (role-based tests), and use automated tests to confirm enforcement.
REQ-004	Per-user, per-project policy customizati…	10 threats	3 controls	ISO27001, NIST, OWASP	Critical	Test access enforcement across project boundaries, review policy decision points, and validate denied/allowed scenarios for different roles.
REQ-007	Cloud resource administration capability…	10 threats	3 controls	ISO27001, NIST, OWASP	Critical	Review baseline configuration documents, inspect deployed instances for compliance, and perform configuration drift scans.
REQ-008	Project credential and secrets managemen…	10 threats	3 controls	ISO27001, NIST, OWASP	Critical	Review cryptographic policy, inspect encryption configurations, and validate key management practices (HSM/KMS use).
REQ-009	Strict multi-tenant project isolation ac…	10 threats	3 controls	ISO27001, NIST, OWASP	Critical	Perform targeted tests for tenant isolation, inspect data access paths for tenant ID enforcement, and review caching/session partitioning.
REQ-015	Ticketing system integrated with user pr…	10 threats	4 controls	ISO27001, NIST, OWASP	Critical	Review server-side authorization code, perform access control testing (role-based tests), and use automated tests to confirm enforcement.
REQ-016	Platform administrators have read/write …	10 threats	4 controls	ISO27001, NIST, OWASP	Critical	Review server-side authorization code, perform access control testing (role-based tests), and use automated tests to confirm enforcement.
REQ-017	Audit logging of user actions, administr…	10 threats	3 controls	ISO27001, NIST, OWASP	Critical	Inspect log retention configuration, review periodic log review records, and verify deletion/purge processes respect retention policy.
REQ-006	Project creation workflow where register…	10 threats	3 controls	ISO27001, NIST, OWASP	High	Inspect asset inventory, test project creation flows against inventory data, and review quota update transactions.

Showing 10 of 25 requirements. See Appendix D for complete traceability matrix.

Traceability Statistics

Total Requirements Tracked: 25
Requirements Linked to Threats: 25 (100.0%)
Requirements Mapped to Controls: 18 (72.0%)
Average Controls per Requirement: 2.4
Control Distribution by Standard:
- NIST SP 800-53: 22 controls
- OWASP ASVS: 19 controls
- ISO 27001: 18 controls
Verification Coverage: 100% (all requirements have verification methods)

7. AI/ML Security Requirements

This section addresses security requirements specific to artificial intelligence and machine learning components within the system. AI/ML systems introduce unique security challenges including prompt injection attacks, data poisoning, model theft, adversarial inputs, and bias vulnerabilities. This analysis identifies AI/ML components, assesses their security risks, and prescribes specialized controls to protect both the AI systems themselves and the data they process.

7.1. AI/ML Components Detected

This section identifies all AI/ML components within the system that require specialized security controls.

AI Fault Detection System: Utilizes machine learning algorithms to analyze system performance and detect anomalies that may indicate faults in the cloud infrastructure.
Automated Notification System: Leverages AI to trigger alerts based on monitored metrics, including system capacity and health checks.
Health and Security Checks: Incorporates AI-driven methods for vulnerability scanning and misconfiguration detection across the platform.

7.2. AI/ML Threat Model

Component	Identified Threats
AI Fault Detection System	- Prompt injection leading to false positives/negatives
	- Adversarial inputs that manipulate fault detection
	- Model poisoning through malicious training data
Automated Notification System	- Data leakage of sensitive information via notifications
	- Spam or denial-of-service through excessive alerts
Health and Security Checks	- Model inversion attacks to extract sensitive training data
	- Bias in detecting vulnerabilities leading to blind spots

7.3. AI/ML Security Controls

AI Fault Detection System

Input Validation: Ensure that all inputs to the AI system are thoroughly validated to prevent prompt injection attacks.
Output Filtering and Sanitization: Implement measures to sanitize AI outputs, preventing potentially harmful or misleading alerts.

Automated Notification System

Rate Limiting and Abuse Prevention: Establish thresholds for notifications to prevent spam and denial-of-service attacks.
Data Leakage Prevention: Ensure no personally identifiable information (PII) is included in notifications sent through the platform.

Health and Security Checks

Model Access Controls: Restrict access to AI models based on roles to prevent unauthorized manipulation.
Monitoring for Adversarial Inputs: Continuously monitor inputs to the health checks for signs of adversarial manipulation or model poisoning.
Model Versioning and Rollback Capabilities: Maintain version control for AI models, allowing quick rollback to previous stable versions in case of a detected compromise.

7.4. Integration with Existing Security Controls

AI controls are designed to integrate seamlessly with existing security practices, including role-based access control (RBAC), audit logging, and compliance features. The AI components will inherit the security measures already in place for user authentication, authorization, and data protection, ensuring a unified security posture across the platform.

7.5. AI/ML Monitoring Requirements

Monitoring Area	Description
Anomaly Detection	Monitor AI fault detection performance for accuracy and false positives.
Notification System Activity	Track the volume and type of notifications sent to prevent abuse.
Health Check Integrity	Regular audits of health and security checks to identify biases or inaccuracies.
Model Performance	Continuous evaluation of AI models for performance degradation or adversarial impacts.

8. Compliance Requirements

This section identifies regulatory and legal compliance obligations applicable to the system based on data types, geographic scope, industry sector, and business operations. Compliance requirements drive specific security controls, data handling procedures, audit capabilities, and privacy protections. Non-compliance can result in significant legal penalties, reputational damage, and business disruption. This analysis maps applicable regulations to specific security requirements and operational procedures.

8.1. Applicable Regulations

The identification of applicable regulations for the Multi-Tenancy Private Cloud Management Platform is based on the types of data processed, the geographic scope of operations, industry standards, and the nature of business activities. The platform handles user data, potentially includes health information, and has functionalities that could involve financial transactions. These factors collectively trigger various regulatory obligations that directly influence security controls, data handling procedures, and operational processes necessary to ensure compliance.

Regulation	Applicability Reason
GDPR	Applies because the system processes personal data of EU residents, including user registration and policy management.
CCPA	Relevant due to the handling of personal data of California residents, necessitating consumer rights and disclosures.
HIPAA	Applicable if the platform manages any health-related information of users, warranting strict data protection measures.
PCI-DSS	Relevant if the platform processes payment card data, requiring compliance with security standards for payment transactions.
SOX	Applicable due to the potential management of financial data and ensuring the integrity of financial reporting.
GLBA	Relevant if financial institutions’ data is handled, requiring privacy notices and safeguards for customer data.
COPPA	Applicable if the platform collects data from children under 13, necessitating parental consent and privacy protections.
Data Residency Laws	Relevant based on the geographic location of users, which may impose restrictions on data storage and processing.

8.2. Compliance Controls by Regulation

CCPA

Implement clear privacy notices that inform users about data collection and usage.
Provide users with the right to opt-out of the sale of their personal information.
Allow users to request access to their personal data and the deletion of their data.

HIPAA

Establish administrative, physical, and technical safeguards for health information.
Conduct regular risk assessments and implement security measures to protect health information.
Ensure business associate agreements are in place with third-party vendors who handle health data.

PCI-DSS

Encrypt payment data during transmission and storage.
Maintain a secure network infrastructure to protect cardholder data.
Implement access controls and monitoring systems for payment transaction processing.

SOX

Enforce internal controls for financial data accuracy and security.
Maintain audit trails for all financial transactions and reporting.

GLBA

Provide privacy notices detailing how customer data is collected and shared.
Implement security measures to protect customer financial information.

COPPA

Obtain verifiable parental consent before collecting information from children under 13.
Provide clear privacy policies regarding children’s data handling.

Data Residency Laws

Implement geographic data storage and processing protocols based on user location.
Provide mechanisms for compliance with local data protection laws.

8.3. Data Subject Rights

Right	Description
Right to Access	Users can request access to their personal data held by the platform.
Right to Erasure	Users can request deletion of their personal data from the platform.
Right to Data Portability	Users can request their data in a structured, commonly used format for transfer to another service.
Right to Opt-Out	Users can opt-out of the sale of their personal information as per CCPA requirements.

8.4. Privacy Requirements

Consent: Users must provide explicit consent for data collection and processing activities.
Privacy Notices: Clear and concise privacy policies must be provided to users, outlining data collection, usage, and rights.
Data Security: Implement security measures to safeguard personal data against unauthorized access and breaches.

8.5. Audit and Monitoring Requirements

Logging: Maintain detailed logs of all user activities, access events, and administrative changes for compliance and auditing purposes.
Monitoring: Continuous monitoring of data access and processing activities to detect any unauthorized actions or anomalies.

8.6. Data Handling Rules

Retention: Personal data should be retained only as long as necessary to fulfill the purpose for which it was collected.
Deletion: Implement procedures for the secure deletion of personal data when it is no longer needed or upon user request.

8.7. Compliance Risk Assessment

The compliance risk assessment identifies areas where the platform may be vulnerable to regulatory non-compliance. It highlights potential gaps in data protection measures, user rights, and regulatory obligations that could lead to legal consequences or reputational damage.

Key Compliance Risks:

Inadequate consent management leading to unauthorized data processing.
Insufficient security controls exposing personal and sensitive data to breaches.
Failure to provide users with access to their data and rights under applicable regulations.

9. Security Architecture Recommendations

This section provides comprehensive security architecture guidance that integrates security controls into the system’s technical design. Security architecture defines how security principles, controls, and patterns are applied across system components to create a cohesive, defense-in-depth security posture. The recommendations address architectural principles, component-level controls, data protection strategies, and third-party integration security to ensure security is built into the system design.

9.1. Architectural Security Principles

Architectural security principles provide the foundational philosophy guiding all security design decisions. These principles ensure a consistent security posture across all system components and guide the selection and implementation of security controls, balancing security with usability, scalability and operational needs.

Zero Trust Architecture principles: Never trust, always verify — authenticate and authorize every request, device and component regardless of network location. This reduces implicit trust in network boundaries and mitigates lateral movement and insider threats.
Defense in Depth: Apply layered controls across network, host, application, and data layers so a failure in one control does not lead to full compromise. This provides redundancy and compensating controls for resilient protection.
Principle of Least Privilege: Grant users, services, and processes the minimum permissions necessary and prefer just-in-time elevation for sensitive tasks. This reduces blast radius from misconfiguration or compromise.
Secure by Default / Secure by Design: Defaults must be secure (deny-by-default); security considerations and controls are incorporated from design through development and operations to minimize configuration drift and insecure defaults.
Separation of Duties: Split critical roles and privileges (e.g., provisioning vs. approval) to reduce insider risk and enforce governance for policy and change approvals.
Fail Secure: On failure, systems should fail into a safe state (e.g., deny access, quarantine workloads) rather than an open state that permits risky behavior.
Complete Mediation (Always Check): Every access request must be checked by the authoritative policy point — no shortcuts or cached bypasses for authorization decisions without validation.
Immutable and Tamper-Evident Logging: Ensure audit trails are immutable and verifiable to support forensics and compliance.
Separation of Control and Data Planes: Keep control-plane operations and data-plane traffic separated and governed differently to reduce risk of lateral manipulation of infrastructure.
Privacy by Design: Minimize sensitive personal data processed, implement pseudonymization where possible, and provide data locality controls for compliance.
Least Common Mechanism: Avoid shared components across tenants where sharing creates risk; prefer tenant-specific isolation or strong logical separation mechanisms.

9.2. Component-Level Security Controls

Edge Layer

Required Controls:

DDoS protection at network and transport layers
Web Application Firewall (WAF) tuned to block OWASP top-10 attacks
TLS 1.3 termination or passthrough depending on inspection requirements
Mutual TLS (mTLS) for upstream internal connections (edge → API gateway)
Geo-fencing / IP allow-listing for management endpoints
API rate-limiting and throttling per client / tenant
Logging of ingress events with tenant metadata and tamper-evident forwarding
TLS certificate lifecycle management (monitoring and rotation)
Bot management and anomaly detection at edge

Recommended Patterns:

Hardened Load Balancer + WAF in front of API Gateway
CDN for static content with origin shielding and tokenized URLs
TLS 1.3 with modern cipher suites and HSTS for browsers
Network ACLs / firewall rules tied to infrastructure-as-code (IaC)
Edge security configuration managed via version-controlled templates

Frontend Layer (User-facing Web SPA, Admin UI, CLI endpoints)

Required Controls:

Enforce strong authentication flows (OIDC/OAuth2 + MFA)
Content Security Policy (CSP), X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options
Secure cookie attributes (Secure, HttpOnly, SameSite=strict where appropriate)
Prevent CSRF via anti-CSRF tokens or SameSite mechanisms
Input validation & output encoding to prevent XSS and injection
Short-lived tokens with refresh token rotation and revocation lists
Session management: inactivity timeouts and absolute session lifetimes
Strict CORS rules bound to allowed origins
Client-side telemetry obfuscation to avoid leaking sensitive project details

Recommended Patterns:

SPA served from CDN with SRI (subresource integrity) and immutable caching
Use OIDC for SSO with centralized identity provider and adaptive MFA
Token storage in browser: use in-memory and refresh flows to avoid long-lived local storage
CLI: support OAuth2 device flow or client-cert auth for non-interactive automation

Application Services (API Gateway, AuthN/AuthZ, Project & Policy Engines, Provisioning, Ticketing)

Required Controls:

Centralized authentication & authorization (OAuth2/OIDC, RBAC/ABAC) with per-request enforcement
Policy Decision Point (PDP) + Policy Enforcement Point (PEP) architecture for per-user, per-project policies
Input validation, schema enforcement, and strong business-logic checks
Rate limiting, quotas, and tenant-scoped throttling enforced at API Gateway and services
Detailed, structured audit logging for all privileged and provisioning actions
Just-In-Time (JIT) elevation and break-glass workflows for high-risk admin operations
Secrets never stored in plain text; integration with KMS/vault for runtime retrieval
Idempotent APIs for provisioning with transactional orchestration and rollback
Multi-project membership checks and tenant-awareness in every service call
Strong error handling without leaking internal data in responses

Recommended Patterns:

API Gateway with OAuth2 bearer token validation, rate-limiting, request size limits
Microservices with a central authn/authz service and sidecar-based access control (e.g., envoy + authz filter)
Policy engine (OPA or policy service) for hierarchical policy + inheritance
Service mesh (e.g., mTLS between services) for intra-cluster encryption and identity
Use of workflow/orchestration engine (e.g., Argo Workflows/Temporal) with durable state and retries

Data Layer (Identity, Tenant Metadata, Audit Logs, TSDB, Secrets Vault/KMS)

Required Controls:

Encrypted storage at rest using strong algorithms and enterprise KMS/HSM integration
Transparent Data Encryption (TDE) for DBs plus column-level encryption for secrets/PII
Tenant-aware data model with tenant ID enforced at DB access layer
Immutable and tamper-evident audit-log storage (append-only or WORM)
Time-series DB isolation and RBAC for metrics access
Backups encrypted and access controlled; testable restore and secure deletion
Database activity monitoring and query logging
Key lifecycle management: rotation, use policies, separation of duties for key access

Recommended Patterns:

Encrypted relational DB with TDE and column encryption + Vault for secrets
Use HSM-backed KMS for root key material and envelope encryption for data keys
Audit logs forwarded to immutable object store (WORM) and SIEM for analysis
Tenant-scoped DB schemas or logical namespaces with strict PEP checks

Integration & Connectors (Kubernetes, OpenStack, VMware, SDN APIs)

Required Controls:

Least-privilege service accounts and scoped roles for connectors
Use mTLS or OAuth2 client credentials for connector authentication
Network segmentation and jump-hosting patterns for connector access to customer infra
Input sanitization and validation of commands executed against infra APIs
Rate-limiting, circuit-breakers, and safe retry/backoff behavior for connectors
Connector credential rotation and ephemeral tokens where possible
Audit of every provisioning action with before/after state capture

Recommended Patterns:

Connector proxies in isolated network zones with restricted egress
Use short-lived ephemeral credentials issued by Vault per operation
Connector orchestration through a control plane with RBAC and approval steps
Use of Kubernetes operator patterns for safe reconciliation and drift detection

Observability & AI (Metrics, Logs, Anomaly Detection)

Required Controls:

Secure telemetry pipeline: TLS, authentication, and authorization for ingestion
Pseudonymization or redaction of PII in telemetry streams
Model governance: versioning, explainability, training data provenance and drift monitoring
Rate-limited alerting with deduplication and severity-based escalation
Access controls for dashboards and runbooks with audit trails
Tamper-proof storage for alerts and derived anomaly scores

Recommended Patterns:

Metrics collection via Prometheus exporters with tenant labels and relabeling to avoid leakage
SIEM + ML pipeline for anomaly detection with human-in-the-loop escalation for high-risk actions
Deploy ML models in isolated inference environments with input validation and poisoning detection
Use event-sourcing to correlate anomalies with provisioning events for runbook generation

External Services (Email/SMS/Webhooks, CI, Third-party Ticketing, CDN)

Required Controls:

Secure credentials storage for external service API keys in Vault
Signed webhooks and HMAC verification for inbound events
Egress filtering and allow-listing per external service and tenant
Per-tenant notification routing and suppression controls
Monitoring and alerting for external delivery failures and anomalies

Recommended Patterns:

Use provider-specific integrations via abstraction layer to rotate keys seamlessly
Signed, timestamped webhook payloads + replay protection
Message queues and reliable delivery with retries and dead-letter queues
Outbound traffic through dedicated egress gateways with observability

9.3. Data Protection Strategy

Data Classification: Public, Internal, Confidential, Restricted

Public: Non-sensitive content intended for public consumption (marketing pages, public docs).
Internal: Operational metadata and non-sensitive telemetry used by platform teams.
Confidential: Project metadata, configuration (non-secrets), non-PII telemetry, and most admin data.
Restricted: Secrets, credentials, private keys, PII, audit logs, tenant data requiring strict access and data residency controls.

Encryption Requirements:

Data in Transit:
- TLS 1.3 mandatory for all external and internal RPC/HTTP traffic.
- mTLS for service-to-service and connector-to-infrastructure communications.
- Use modern cipher suites (AEAD ciphers such as AES-GCM, ChaCha20-Poly1305).
Data at Rest:
- Use AES-256-GCM for symmetric encryption of persisted data (databases, object store, backups).
- Use RSA-4096 or ECC P-384 for asymmetric operations where needed; favor ECC (e.g., ECDSA P-384) for certificate/key use.
- Envelope encryption: data encrypted with data keys; data keys encrypted by KMS root keys stored in HSM.
Key Management:
- Enterprise KMS/HSM for root keys; rotate data-encryption keys periodically (e.g., 90 days default) and rotate key-encryption keys per policy.
- Restrict key use via IAM and require dual-control for high-impact key access.
- Support cryptographic erasure by destroying keys to render data unreadable.

Retention Policies:

Audit logs: configurable per customer policy; default retention 1 year, critical security/audit logs retained 7 years (or per regulatory requirement).
Telemetry metrics: high-resolution (raw) data retained 30 days; aggregated metrics retained 1–3 years depending on analytics needs and compliance.
Backups: retain daily backups for 30 days, weekly snapshots for 90 days, monthly snapshots for 1 year (configurable).
Secrets: rotation schedule depending on risk — default 90 days; rotation on compromise or role change immediate.
Project data: retention and deletion aligned to customer data residency and legal holds; default safe-delete retention window 30 days before purge to allow recovery.
Exportable logs: support on-demand exports with proper access control and encryption; maintain export logs for auditing.

Handling Procedures:

Access:
- Enforce RBAC/ABAC for every data access; require PDP decision per request.
- Log and monitor all accesses to Confidential and Restricted data; alert on anomalous access patterns.
Transmission:
- All internal and external transfers use TLS or mTLS; use signed payloads for webhooks.
- Pseudonymize or tokenise PII in telemetry before transmission to external analytics pipelines.
Storage:
- Secrets stored only in KMS/Vault; application config only references secrets by ID, retrieved at runtime with short TTL.
- Use tenant-scoped storage buckets or logical namespaces; tag all objects with tenant, region and retention metadata.
Deletion:
- Use secure deletion procedures: for object stores, delete objects and their versions; for encrypted stores, perform cryptographic erasure by deleting keys.
- Maintain deletion proof logs (who/when/what) for compliance; perform periodic verification of deletions.
Backups & Disaster Recovery:
- Encrypt backups and store in separate physical locations (region-aware) per residency needs.
- Test restores quarterly and maintain documented recovery time objectives (RTOs) and recovery point objectives (RPOs).
Data Residency:
- Support per-project placement restrictions; enforce processing/storage locations during project creation and provisioning checks.
- Provide exportable compliance reports identifying physical location and custody of data.
Data Minimization:
- Limit PII to what is necessary; provide tools to anonymize or remove PII when not needed.

9.4. Third-Party Integration Security

WAF / Load Balancer Appliances (Edge vendors)

Security Requirements:

Use of appliance-level management over secure channel (HTTPS + MFA)
Hardened admin interfaces accessible only from management network
Integration with API gateway for request context propagation

Risk Assessment: Medium — critical for exposure protection but misconfiguration or management compromise could open paths to platform.

Recommended Controls:

Separate management plane network and IP allow-listing
Strong role-based admin access with MFA
Configuration as code and automated drift detection
Monitor WAF logs for false negatives and tune rules regularly

CDN (optional)

Security Requirements:

HTTPS with origin authentication and signed URLs for private content
Cache-control and SRI for integrity of static assets

Risk Assessment: Low-Medium — exposes static content; misconfiguration may leak sensitive endpoints.

Recommended Controls:

Tokenized URL access for private content
Strict origin allow-listing and TLS origination
Cache key control to avoid caching sensitive responses

OAuth2/OIDC Identity Providers (SSO)

Security Requirements:

OIDC with PKCE for browser flows and client credentials for services
Support for MFA and conditional access policies

Risk Assessment: High — compromise of identity provider impacts entire platform.

Recommended Controls:

Use enterprise IdP with strong security posture and SLA
Enforce MFA for all admin and privileged accounts
Monitor IdP logs and integrate with SIEM; support SAML/OIDC federation audits

MFA Provider

Security Requirements:

Strong second factor (TOTP / FIDO2 / push) and attestation
Secure registration and recovery flows

Risk Assessment: High — MFA bypass undermines access protections.

Recommended Controls:

Enforce phishing-resistant factors for admins (FIDO2)
Require attestation and device registration policies
Backup/escape mechanisms with strict verification and audit

Enterprise KMS / HSM

Security Requirements:

HSM-backed key storage
Role separation for key management operations
Logging for key usage and rotation operations

Risk Assessment: Critical — KMS compromise allows decryption and widespread data access.

Recommended Controls:

Limit direct access to HSM; use envelope encryption
Multi-person controls for key deletion/destruction
Key access via short-lived credentials and strictly-scoped IAM roles

Relational DB / Distributed Datastore

Security Requirements:

Encrypted connections (TLS) with client auth for DB access
Network isolation and private endpoints for DB access only from platform services

Risk Assessment: High — DB compromise exposes tenant metadata and possibly secrets.

Recommended Controls:

TDE and column-level encryption for sensitive fields
DB activity monitoring and privileged session recording
Vulnerability scanning and hardened DB configuration templates

Time-Series DBs (Prometheus/InfluxDB)

Security Requirements:

TLS for remote write/reads and authentication/authorization per tenant
Limits on query cost and retention

Risk Assessment: Medium — leak of metrics could reveal capacity data or PII in labels.

Recommended Controls:

Use relabeling to scrub PII in metric labels
Tenant-scoped metrics instances or rigorous label hygiene
Rate limiting and query performance guards

Kubernetes API (customer infra)

Security Requirements:

Use RBAC with narrow scoped service accounts
mTLS or short-lived tokens for connector authentication

Risk Assessment: High — mishandled permission can lead to cluster compromise and cross-tenant exposure.

Recommended Controls:

Use admission controllers, Pod Security Standards, and namespace quotas
Ephemeral service account tokens issued by Vault for operations
Audit logging of all connector actions and before/after snapshots

OpenStack / VMware APIs

Security Requirements:

Use HTTPS with certificate pinning or mTLS
Strict IAM policies and per-project service credentials

Risk Assessment: High — infrastructure-level compromise allows data exfiltration and resource abuse.

Recommended Controls:

Use least-privilege cloud roles and rotate credentials frequently
Limit connector network path and log all provisioning API calls
Implement pre-provisioning checks and post-provisioning hardening scripts

SDN Controller APIs

Security Requirements:

Secure channel (mTLS), role-based access and command validation
Strict change management and approval for network changes

Risk Assessment: High — network misconfiguration can remove tenant isolation

Recommended Controls:

Policy-as-code for network changes with peer-review and approval gates
Simulation/dry-run mode for changes and rollback capability
Continuous verification of network segmentation effectiveness

AI/ML Frameworks & Optional External ML Services

Security Requirements:

Secure model pipelines and separation of training vs inference data
Access control for model endpoints and training data

Risk Assessment: Medium-High — model poisoning or exfiltration of training data can create false positives/negatives or leak sensitive data.

Recommended Controls:

Validate and sanitize training data; monitor for drift and poisoning indicators
Run inference in isolated, authenticated environments; sign model artifacts
Version and audit models; human-in-the-loop for high-impact automated actions

Email / SMS Providers

Security Requirements:

Store provider credentials in vault and rotate frequently
TLS for API calls and signed messages where possible

Risk Assessment: Medium — compromise can lead to phishing or unauthorized alerts.

Recommended Controls:

Rate-limiting, monitoring of abnormal send patterns
Use domain-level protections (SPF, DKIM, DMARC) and SMS sender verification
Allow per-project notification throttles and opt-out controls

Webhook / CI Endpoints (external integrators)

Security Requirements:

HMAC-signed payloads and replay protection
IP allow-listing and mutual authentication where feasible

Risk Assessment: Medium — spoofed webhooks can trigger unauthorized automation.

Recommended Controls:

Validate signature and timestamp on incoming webhooks
Provide configurable per-tenant secret rotation for webhook signing
Log and alert on repeated failures and suspicious webhook activity

Third-party Ticketing / ITSM Systems

Security Requirements:

OAuth2 or API-key based integration with limited scopes
Data redaction controls for sensitive ticket fields

Risk Assessment: Medium — tickets can contain sensitive debugging data or credentials.

Recommended Controls:

Prevent storing secrets in tickets and implement field redaction
Integrate ticket actions with audit logs in platform; require RBAC for ticket visibility
Monitor access and export actions from ticketing systems

How these elements work together (holistic view)

Identity is the central trust anchor: every request is authenticated (OIDC/OAuth2) and authorized by a central PDP that enforces per-user, per-project, and per-role policies. MFA is enforced for all privileged operations and admin UIs.
The Edge Layer enforces the first line of defense: rate limiting, WAF rules and DDoS mitigation. The API Gateway performs token validation and context propagation (tenant id, role) and forwards to backend services running within a service mesh for strong mTLS.
Application services are small, tenant-aware microservices with centralized policy enforcement. All secrets are fetched at runtime from the secrets vault; no secrets in code or images.
Provisioning and connectors operate with ephemeral credentials and strict RBAC; operations are orchestrated via a workflow engine that supports idempotency, dry-run, and rollback.
Observability and AI ingest labeled telemetry that preserves tenant separation and avoids PII leakage. Anomaly detections feed notifications into ticketing and notification subsystems; high-impact auto-remediations require policy approval gates and are auditable.
Data flows are always encrypted and scoped by tenant; audit logs are forwarded to immutable storage and SIEM for detection and compliance reporting. Retention policies and exports are governed by project-level and regulatory policies enforced in the platform.
Third-party integrations are wrapped with abstraction layers to manage secrets, rotate credentials, and standardize authentication (mTLS/OAuth2/HMAC); logs of outbound and inbound exchanges are aggregated for monitoring and threat hunting.
Governance, secure-by-default IaC and CI/CD pipelines ensure consistent secure baselines; change control, vulnerability scanning, and regular pen testing provide continuous validation.

This architecture and controls map directly to defense-in-depth, zero-trust and compliance requirements and provide a secure, auditable, and operationally manageable multi-tenant private cloud management platform.

10. Implementation Roadmap

This section provides a prioritized, phased approach for implementing the security controls identified throughout this analysis. The roadmap organizes security measures into logical phases based on risk, dependencies, and resource availability, ensuring critical security gaps are addressed first while building a foundation for comprehensive security coverage.

10.1. Prioritization Framework

Prioritization is critical for effective security implementation as it ensures that resources are allocated efficiently to address the most pressing risks and compliance requirements first. It balances immediate needs with long-term goals, enabling an organization to systematically enhance its security posture without overwhelming its resources.

Prioritization Criteria:

Risk Level: Controls addressing critical and high-risk threats (identified through threat modeling) are prioritized first.
Compliance Deadlines: Regulatory requirements and compliance deadlines influence immediate priority.
Technical Complexity: Controls requiring foundational infrastructure are implemented early to enable subsequent controls.
Dependencies: Controls that other security measures depend upon are prioritized accordingly.
Resource Availability: Implementation considers the availability of skilled personnel, tools, and budget.
Business Impact: Controls protecting business-critical functions and data receive higher priority.

These criteria work together to create a logical implementation sequence that balances security needs with practical constraints, ensuring that the organization addresses the most significant threats and compliance issues first while laying the groundwork for ongoing improvements.

10.2. Phased Implementation Plan

Phase: IMMEDIATE

Timeline: 0-1 months

Rationale: This phase addresses critical vulnerabilities and compliance blockers that pose the highest risk if left unaddressed. It lays the groundwork for essential security functions like authentication and data protection.

Controls to Implement:

Implement strong password policies and mandatory multi-factor authentication (MFA) for all user accounts.
Deploy basic encryption for sensitive data at rest and in transit.
Ensure compliance with critical regulatory requirements to avoid legal penalties.
Address critical vulnerabilities identified in threat modeling.

Dependencies:

None

Phase: SHORT-TERM

Timeline: 1-3 months

Rationale: These controls build upon immediate security measures, focusing on improving access control adjustments and ensuring that logging and API security mitigate identified threats effectively.

Controls to Implement:

Enhance user authentication through comprehensive multi-factor authentication.
Deploy role-based access controls across the admin dashboard.
Implement comprehensive logging and monitoring for all administrative actions.
Strengthen API security with input validation and HTTPS protocols.
Begin encryption for all sensitive data at rest.

Dependencies:

Completion of TLS Implementation
Completion of multi-factor authentication

Phase: MEDIUM-TERM

Timeline: 3-6 months

Rationale: This phase focuses on advanced security measures that require more detailed planning and integration, such as threat detection and security testing.

Controls to Implement:

Implement advanced threat detection using AI-assisted tools.
Automate security testing processes for continuous assessment.
Conduct third-party security audits to identify and rectify gaps.
Enhance data protection measures, including advanced encryption strategies and key management.

Dependencies:

Establishment of comprehensive logging and monitoring
Integration of enhanced authentication mechanisms

Phase: LONG-TERM

Timeline: 6-12 months

Rationale: Strategic initiatives aimed at enhancing security maturity and embedding security into the organizational culture and processes.

Controls to Implement:

Develop and implement security maturity enhancements across all systems.
Deploy advanced AI/ML security controls for proactive threat management.
Conduct comprehensive penetration testing to validate security measures.
Establish ongoing security awareness programs to educate employees.

Dependencies:

Completion of advanced threat detection
Implementation of data protection enhancements

Phase: ONGOING

Timeline: Continuous

Rationale: Continuous activities that ensure the long-term integrity and resilience of the security posture.

Controls to Implement:

Maintain continuous security monitoring and incident response readiness.
Regularly apply patches and updates to all systems.
Conduct periodic compliance audits to ensure ongoing regulatory adherence.
Maintain and update incident response plans as threats evolve.

Dependencies:

Establishment of comprehensive logging and monitoring
Integration of enhanced authentication mechanisms

10.3. Resource Requirements

Skills: Security engineers, Security architects, Web developers, Compliance specialists.

Recommended tools: SIEM solutions for logging and monitoring, Vulnerability scanners for testing, Encryption libraries for data protection, API management tools for secure interfaces.

Estimated time effort: Approximately 3-6 months for initial phases, with ongoing efforts extending resources as per system complexity and requirements.

11. Verification and Testing Strategy

11.1. Testing Approach

Integrate security testing throughout the software development lifecycle (SDLC) with an emphasis on continuous security practices. Balance automated scanning with manual evaluations to prioritize high-risk areas based on business impact, adhering to shift-left security principles by incorporating security testing earlier and continuously. This approach will enable early detection of vulnerabilities, enhance security awareness among developers, and ensure compliance with regulatory requirements.

11.2. Testing Methods

Method	Frequency	Tools
STATIC APPLICATION SECURITY TESTING (SAST)	Every commit/build	SonarQube, Semgrep, Checkmarx, CodeQL
DYNAMIC APPLICATION SECURITY TESTING (DAST)	Nightly/weekly	OWASP ZAP, Burp Suite, Acunetix
DEPENDENCY SCANNING	Every build	Snyk, Dependabot, OWASP Dependency-Check
SECRETS SCANNING	Every commit	TruffleHog, GitLeaks, GitHub Secret Scanning
CONTAINER/INFRASTRUCTURE SCANNING	Every deployment	Trivy, Clair, Prowler, ScoutSuite
PENETRATION TESTING	Quarterly or before major releases	Custom scripts, Metasploit, Burp Suite Pro
SECURITY CODE REVIEW	For critical features	GitHub/GitLab code review, security checklists
COMPLIANCE SCANNING	Continuous	AWS Config, Azure Policy, Cloud Custodian

11.3. Compliance Verification

Multi-standard compliance (OWASP ASVS, NIST SP 800-53, ISO 27001) will be verified through automated tools and manual checks against regulatory requirements such as GDPR, CCPA, HIPAA, and PCI-DSS. Audit preparation will involve ensuring documentation and evidence collection for external audits, including logs, security configurations, and test results. Recommendations will include engaging third-party auditors for comprehensive evaluations to validate adherence to compliance controls and identify any gaps in security measures.

11.4. Continuous Monitoring

Implement Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) for real-time monitoring, supported by Intrusion Detection/Prevention Systems (IDS/IPS) to identify and mitigate threats. All logs will be aggregated and analyzed for anomalies, with integration into incident response processes to ensure prompt action against security events. Continuous monitoring will also include automated compliance checks and health scans to maintain security posture and compliance with applicable regulations.

11.5. Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)

Mean time to detect (MTTD) security issues
Mean time to remediate (MTTR) vulnerabilities
Percentage of critical vulnerabilities patched within SLA
Security test coverage percentage
False positive rate in automated scanning
Compliance audit pass rate

11.6. Control Mapping

Testing Method	Applicable Controls
STATIC APPLICATION SECURITY TESTING (SAST)	Input validation, injection flaws, hardcoded secrets (OWASP ASVS, NIST SP 800-53)
DYNAMIC APPLICATION SECURITY TESTING (DAST)	Authentication, authorization, XSS, CSRF, SQL injection (OWASP ASVS, NIST SP 800-53)
DEPENDENCY SCANNING	Supply chain security (OWASP ASVS, NIST SP 800-53)
SECRETS SCANNING	Cryptographic protection (OWASP ASVS, NIST SP 800-53)
CONTAINER/INFRASTRUCTURE SCANNING	Configuration management (OWASP ASVS, ISO 27001)
PENETRATION TESTING	All high-risk controls (OWASP ASVS, NIST SP 800-53)
SECURITY CODE REVIEW	Authentication, authorization, crypto implementations (OWASP ASVS, NIST SP 800-53)
COMPLIANCE SCANNING	All compliance-related controls (ISO 27001, GDPR, HIPAA, PCI-DSS)

12. Validation Report

This section presents a comprehensive validation of the security requirements generated throughout this analysis. The validation evaluates the requirements against five key dimensions: completeness, consistency, correctness, implementability, and alignment with business objectives. This assessment ensures that the security requirements are comprehensive, technically sound, and actionable for implementation teams.

12.1. Overall Assessment

The overall validation score reflects the quality and completeness of the security requirements across five critical dimensions. Each dimension is scored from 0.0 to 1.0, with 1.0 representing excellent coverage and 0.0 indicating significant gaps.

Overall Score: 0.84/1.0

Validation Status: ✅ PASSED

The security requirements have met the quality threshold (≥0.8) and are ready for implementation. The requirements demonstrate comprehensive coverage, technical accuracy, and alignment with business objectives.

The validation assesses:

Completeness: Are all identified security concerns adequately addressed?
Consistency: Do requirements align with each other without contradictions?
Correctness: Are controls appropriate for the identified risks and correctly applied?
Implementability: Are requirements specific, actionable, and feasible to implement?
Alignment: Do security requirements align with business requirements and objectives?

12.2. Dimension Scores

Dimension	Score	Status
Completeness	0.80	✅
Consistency	0.90	✅
Correctness	0.85	✅
Implementability	0.75	⚠️
Alignment	0.90	✅

Score Interpretation: - ✅ 0.8-1.0: Excellent - ⚠️ 0.7-0.79: Acceptable (minor improvements needed) - ❌ <0.7: Needs significant improvement

12.3. Detailed Feedback

Summary: The provided security-control mapping is comprehensive and well-aligned with the business requirements: it covers authentication, RBAC, session management, secrets management, multi-tenant isolation, logging/monitoring, AI/ML-specific risks, and compliance. Cross-functional controls (centralized logging, encryption/KMS, RBAC, secure ops) are appropriate and useful. Strengths include: good mapping to NIST/ISO/OWASP, explicit audit/logging and retention controls, AI/ML threat identification, and practical integration tips. Key gaps and recommended actions (actionable, prioritized): 1) Identity & Access Management maturity (High priority) - Add explicit controls/specs for: a) Enterprise SSO/federation (SAML/OIDC), SCIM for provisioning/deprovisioning, and how per-project roles map across federated identities; b) Mandatory MFA policy (administrators and project owners) and enforcement method (hardware tokens, TOTP, conditional MFA); c) Privileged Access Management (PAM) and Just-In-Time (JIT) elevation for platform admins with time-bound sessions and session recording. Acceptance criteria: documented SSO flows, SCIM endpoints, MFA enforcement tests, JIT workflow and logs. 2) Tenant isolation operational specifics (High priority) - Provide concrete isolation implementations and test requirements: a) Application-data model tenancy (tenant ID enforcement on every DB query, row-level/namespace isolation), b) Separate caches/sessions and secret stores per tenant or tenant-aware tagging, c) Backup/restore isolation and encryption keyed-per-tenant, d) Network microsegmentation (VLAN/VRF, NSGs), and verification tests for cross-tenant data leakage and lateral movement. Acceptance criteria: test cases demonstrating no cross-tenant access in active exploitation scenarios; documented backup isolation. 3) Secrets and Key Management specifics (High priority) - Strengthen KMS/HSM requirements: a) Key rotation cadence, split of duties for key administration, hardware-backed keys for root secrets, b) Secrets injection and redaction rules to avoid leaking secrets into logs/tickets, c) Short-lived credentials issuance (vaulted dynamic secrets). Acceptance criteria: KMS config, rotation schedule, sample IAM policies, secret-scan results. 4) CI/CD and Supply Chain Security (High priority) - Add controls for secure build/deployment: a) Signed artifacts, image scanning (SCA for dependencies, container images), immutability for production artifacts, b) Pipeline access RBAC and audit, c) Vulnerability gating (fail builds on critical issues) and SBOM production. Acceptance criteria: pipeline policy document, image scan reports, SBOM generation. 5) API/Platform robustness (Medium-High) - Add non-functional security controls: a) API rate-limiting, request throttling, anomaly detection, and DDoS mitigation design, b) WAF and API gateway requirements including authentication/authorization enforcement and request validation, c) Granular API scopes & refresh token revocation processes. Acceptance criteria: load/rate test results, WAF ruleset baseline, API gateway auth tests. 6) AI/ML governance (Medium priority) - Expand AI controls beyond input/output filtering: a) Model governance (training data lineage, provenance, access controls), b) Regular adversarial testing and poisoning detection, c) Explainability and confidence thresholds with human-in-the-loop escalation for high-risk actions, d) Audit trails for model changes and inference decisions. Acceptance criteria: model registry, versioning, threat-test reports, runbooks for false-positive/negative handling. 7) Incident response, forensics and DR (Medium priority) - Define IR playbooks, escalation paths, sandboxed test environments, and backup/restore validation: a) RTO/RPO targets, b) Forensic-ready logging and tamper-evidence for investigations, c) Regular red-team/pen-test schedule. Acceptance criteria: IR runbook, drill reports, RTO/RPO evidence. 8) Compliance/Residency enforcement (Medium priority) - Add technical enforcement of data residency: a) Geo-tagging of data and workloads, hard policy enforcement preventing cross-region replication, b) Export controls and tenant-level consent/records for data subject rights (erasure/portability automation). Acceptance criteria: policy configs enforcing geographic placement, automated DSAR workflows. 9) Monitoring & Telemetry privacy (Medium priority) - Ensure telemetry does not leak PII: a) PII detection and redaction processors in pipeline, b) retention mapping per tenant and per regulation, c) ticketing attachments controls and secure export workflows. Acceptance criteria: telemetry redaction tests, retention config, secure export logs. 10) Implementation specificity & testability (Medium priority) - Many controls are high-level; add explicit, measurable acceptance criteria for developers and QA: a) Enumerated test cases for RBAC, tenant isolation, API auth, secret handling, backup sanitization, and AI alerts; b) SLOs/SLAs for alerting, ticket response, and remediation timelines. Acceptance criteria: test suite matrix, SLO docs. Minor consistency/correctness notes: - A few NIST/ISO references were used at a high level; ensure mapping to specific control baselines used for compliance evidence (e.g., mapping to NIST SP 800-53 rev4/5 families or ISO annex references used in audits). - The “prompt injection” term in AI controls appears oriented to LLM prompts — if AI models are not LLMs, rephrase to “input manipulation/injection” for clarity. Overall recommendation: add a prioritized security roadmap capturing these gaps, each with owners, timelines, and acceptance tests. This will convert the good, standards-aligned control set into an actionable, developer-consumable backlog and test plan.

Appendix A: Original Requirements Document

Multi-Tenancy Private Cloud Management Platform Requirements

We need to build a web application for managing private cloud infrastructure with multi-tenant project isolation and comprehensive monitoring capabilities.

Key Features:

1. User and Policy Management
   - User registration and login through portal
   - Platform administrator registration
   - Register users to single or multiple isolated project spaces
   - Assign project roles (leader, admin, user) with standard policy rules per role
   - Support users registered to multiple projects with different roles
   - Per-user, per-project policy customization

2. Cloud Portal
   - User-friendly GUI to create, manage and administer cloud projects
   - Integrated notification, monitoring, analytics, ticketing, health and security systems

3. Project Creation
   - Registered users can create projects
   - Define project requirements (quotas, cloud resources, networks, locations)
   - Create project if available resources meet requirements

4. Cloud Resource Administration
   - Deploy or destroy project VNFs, CNFs, applications and networks
   - Set project credentials and access rules
   - Cloud and network monitoring and analytics
   - Ticketing system for requests to platform admin team

5. Platform Administration
   - Platform admins have access to all projects for support
   - Access to ticketing system to interact with project users
   - Access to full platform monitoring and analytics

6. Monitoring and Analytics
   - Monitor all systems within the platform
   - Automated notifications based on AI fault detection
   - Automated warnings for reaching system capacity
   - Dashboard with analytics selection

7. Health and Security System
   - Health and security checks across cloud, network, infrastructure and applications
   - Automated notification system flags risks and vulnerabilities
   - Dashboard with active flags

8. Notifications
   - Users receive notifications according to their roles and policies
   - Notifications displayed on portal page
   - Dashboard with full list of user notifications

The platform will manage multi-tenant cloud infrastructure with isolated project workspaces and comprehensive monitoring capabilities.

Appendix B: Glossary

Term	Definition
ASVS	Application Security Verification Standard (OWASP)
STRIDE	Spoofing, Tampering, Repudiation, Information Disclosure, Denial of Service, Elevation of Privilege
SAST	Static Application Security Testing
DAST	Dynamic Application Security Testing
MFA	Multi-Factor Authentication
RBAC	Role-Based Access Control
PII	Personally Identifiable Information
PHI	Protected Health Information
GDPR	General Data Protection Regulation
HIPAA	Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
PCI-DSS	Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard

Appendix C: Complete Threat List

This appendix contains the complete list of all identified threats with full descriptions and mitigation strategies. Threats are organized by risk level for easy reference.

Critical Risk Threats

THR-003 - Frontend Layer

Category: Information Disclosure
Likelihood: High | Impact: High
Risk Level: Critical
Description: Persistent or reflected XSS in the web SPA allows attackers to steal UI session tokens, perform actions as victims, or exfiltrate data from the portal.
Mitigation Strategy: Enforce strict input validation and output encoding, implement Content Security Policy (CSP), mark session cookies HttpOnly and Secure and use SameSite attributes, use templating frameworks that auto-escape, perform code reviews and automated SAST/DAST scans.

THR-006 - Application Services (Auth / Platform Admin)

Category: Spoofing
Likelihood: High | Impact: High
Risk Level: Critical
Description: Credential theft (phishing, credential stuffing) or weak password policies allow attacker to gain admin or cross-project access, impersonating privileged users for destructive actions.
Mitigation Strategy: Enforce strong password policies, mandatory MFA (hardware tokens for admins), perform credential stuffing detection, implement adaptive authentication, monitor anomalous admin logins and use step-up authentication for sensitive operations.

THR-022 - Edge Layer

Category: Denial of Service
Likelihood: High | Impact: High
Risk Level: Critical
Description: Large-scale DDoS attack saturates the edge WAF/load balancer or upstream resources, causing platform-wide outage or degraded provisioning/management capability.
Mitigation Strategy: Use multi-layer DDoS protection (scrubbing centers/CDN), autoscaling edge capacity, WAF tuning and behavioral baselining, geo-fencing for management endpoints, and playbooks for failover and incident response.

High Risk Threats

THR-002 - Edge Layer -> Internal Service Links

Category: Tampering
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
Risk Level: High
Description: Man-in-the-middle (MITM) or tampering between edge TLS termination and internal services (if internal traffic is unprotected), allowing request modification or credential exposure.
Mitigation Strategy: Encrypt internal service-to-service traffic with mTLS, validate certificates (mutual TLS) end-to-end where possible, use strong cipher suites, secure edge management plane, and restrict management network access.

THR-004 - Frontend Layer / Application Services (SSO)

Category: Spoofing
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
Risk Level: High
Description: Misconfigured OAuth2/OIDC SSO or insecure token validation allows an attacker to forge identity tokens and impersonate users (including admin), or replay tokens from other tenants.
Mitigation Strategy: Use proven OIDC libraries with strict token validation (aud, iss, exp), enforce PKCE for public clients, validate JWT signatures against known keys, require MFA for admin/privileged roles, implement strict session management and short-lived tokens.

THR-007 - Application Services (RBAC / Policy Management)

Category: Elevation of Privilege
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
Risk Level: High
Description: Broken or mis-implemented RBAC allows lower-privilege users to escalate to project admin or platform admin roles (e.g., via vulnerable role assignment APIs or insufficient role checks).
Mitigation Strategy: Design RBAC with least privilege and role separation, enforce server-side authorization checks on every API, use authorization libraries/policies (e.g., ABAC or policy engine like OPA), require admin approvals or multi-party approval for role changes.

THR-008 - Application Services (Policy & Provisioning APIs)

Category: Tampering
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
Risk Level: High
Description: Unauthorized modification of project policies, quotas or provisioning requests through API abuse, IDOR, or insecure direct object references, allowing attackers to change resource allocations or bypass controls.
Mitigation Strategy: Validate object access per-request (no client-controlled IDs without server validation), use parameterized queries, implement deny-by-default authorization checks, log and alert on policy changes, and require multi-factor approvals for quota increases.

THR-009 - Application Services / Data Layer (Audit Logs)

Category: Repudiation
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
Risk Level: High
Description: Insufficient or tamperable audit logs allow malicious actors to repudiate actions (deny having done them) or hide activity; lack of immutable logging prevents incident investigations.
Mitigation Strategy: Send audit logs to an append-only tamper-evident store, protect log integrity with HMAC/signing and separate write-only access, replicate logs to an external SIEM, enable immutable retention and alerting on log deletion attempts.

THR-010 - Application Services / Frontend (Multi-Tenancy Requirement)

Category: Information Disclosure
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
Risk Level: High
Description: Cross-tenant data leakage through application bugs, caching misconfigurations, templating errors, or improper filtering of tenant IDs, leading to exposure of tenant metadata or user data across project boundaries.
Mitigation Strategy: Enforce strict tenant separation at the service layer, include tenant ID in all access control checks, segregate caches and storage per tenant, perform multitenancy test cases, and run penetration tests focusing on tenant isolation.

THR-011 - Data Layer (Secrets/KMS/DB Backups)

Category: Information Disclosure
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
Risk Level: High
Description: Compromise or misconfiguration of the datastore/backups or KMS leading to disclosure of encrypted secrets, credentials, or tenant data (e.g., stolen DB backups or compromised KMS keys).
Mitigation Strategy: Use enterprise KMS/HSM with strict key access policies and rotation, encrypt data at rest and backups with different keys, use access control and auditing for key usage, retain minimal plaintext in logs, and implement separation of duties for key management.

THR-012 - Data Layer (Metadata & Audit Stores)

Category: Tampering
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
Risk Level: High
Description: Unauthorized alteration of tenant metadata, quota state, or audit logs in the database allowing attackers to change historical records, quotas, or hide activities.
Mitigation Strategy: Apply database ACLs with least privilege, use tamper-evident or append-only storage for audits, implement integrity checks and log signing, enable database activity monitoring and block suspicious admin operations, and use multi-region replication with checksums.

THR-013 - Data Layer (Audit Logs)

Category: Repudiation
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
Risk Level: High
Description: A compromised service account or admin deletes or forges audit entries, preventing reliable incident reconstruction and enabling attackers to hide actions.
Mitigation Strategy: Enforce separation of duty for accounts that can modify logs, restrict log deletion to a minimal set of operations with approvals, stream logs to immutable external systems, and use cryptographic signing of logs.

THR-014 - Integration & Connectors

Category: Spoofing
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
Risk Level: High
Description: Compromise of integration/connector credentials (API keys, service accounts) permits attackers to impersonate platform connectors to underlying infrastructure (K8s/OpenStack/VMware) and create/destroy resources or exfiltrate data.
Mitigation Strategy: Use short-lived credentials and workload identity (e.g., OIDC for K8s), store credentials in a secrets vault with access controls, enforce least privilege for connector accounts, rotate credentials and audit connector activity, restrict connector management network access with ACLs and mTLS.

THR-015 - Integration & Connectors

Category: Tampering
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
Risk Level: High
Description: Malicious or misrouted orchestration commands from connectors or compromised orchestration service modify network segmentation or firewall rules, causing lateral movement or external exposure of tenant workloads.
Mitigation Strategy: Enforce change control and authorization for network modifications, require multi-person approval for critical network changes, validate connector identity and commands, implement network microsegmentation and monitoring for unauthorized rule changes.

THR-017 - Observability & AI

Category: Information Disclosure
Likelihood: High | Impact: Medium
Risk Level: High
Description: Telemetry, logs or metrics inadvertently contain sensitive information (credentials, tokens, PII) that is stored in the metrics/logging backend and accessible to unauthorized users or external ML services.
Mitigation Strategy: Scrub PII and secrets from telemetry before ingestion, enforce field-level redaction, use RBAC for observability data, encrypt data at rest in TSDB/logging backends and restrict external ML service access, and perform automated detection of secret patterns.

THR-018 - Observability & AI

Category: Tampering
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
Risk Level: High
Description: Adversarial input or poisoning of metrics/telemetry to confuse the AI anomaly engine, causing missed detection or false positives leading to disruptive automated remediation or ignored incidents.
Mitigation Strategy: Validate and sanitize telemetry inputs, apply anomaly detection robustness techniques and input validation, maintain separate training and operational pipelines, monitor for concept drift, and require human-in-the-loop for high-impact remediation actions.

THR-019 - Observability & AI (Metrics ingestion)

Category: Denial of Service
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
Risk Level: High
Description: Flooding of the metrics/log ingestion pipeline or synthetic telemetry spikes that overwhelm storage/processing causing monitoring and alerting outages and blind spots.
Mitigation Strategy: Implement rate limiting and ingestion throttling, apply sampling and aggregation at the source, use autoscaling and backpressure mechanisms, provide tiered storage for hot/warm/cold metrics, and protect ingestion endpoints with authentication and network ACLs.

THR-023 - Application Services (Provisioning APIs)

Category: Denial of Service
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
Risk Level: High
Description: API abuse, unthrottled provisioning requests or scripted attacks exhaust orchestration resources, DB connections or backend quotas, preventing legitimate operations and causing cascade failures.
Mitigation Strategy: Implement API rate limiting, quotas per user/project, circuit breakers for downstream calls, request validation and backoff strategies, and monitoring/alerting for provisioning anomalies.

THR-024 - Frontend / CLI / Application Services

Category: Spoofing
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
Risk Level: High
Description: API keys or long-lived tokens exposed in frontend code, browser storage, or CLI configuration allow attackers to impersonate service accounts or users to perform privileged actions.
Mitigation Strategy: Avoid embedding long-lived credentials in frontends, use ephemeral tokens and refresh flows, store CLI credentials encrypted and recommend hardware-backed keys for CLI access, rotate keys frequently, and monitor for leaked tokens.

THR-025 - Application Services (APIs / Project Definitions)

Category: Tampering
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
Risk Level: High
Description: SQL injection or other code injection vulnerabilities in APIs allow attackers to manipulate database contents, execute arbitrary queries, or run code on backend services.
Mitigation Strategy: Use parameterized queries/ORMs, input validation and whitelisting, escape outputs, perform SAST and DAST testing, apply least-privilege DB accounts, and enable DB activity monitoring.

THR-026 - Data Layer / KMS

Category: Information Disclosure
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
Risk Level: High
Description: Misconfigured KMS or improper key usage (e.g., reuse of keys across tenants, improper access policies) leads to possible secret exfiltration or ability to decrypt sensitive data across tenants.
Mitigation Strategy: Use tenant-scoped keys or envelope encryption with per-tenant key separation, enforce strict IAM for key usage, log key usage and require approval for key exports, and perform periodic key policy audits.

THR-027 - Network / Project Isolation (Integration & Connectors)

Category: Elevation of Privilege
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
Risk Level: High
Description: Incorrect network segmentation or misapplied firewall/SDN rules allow an attacker to move laterally from one tenant/project environment to another, escalating privileges or accessing other tenants’ workloads.
Mitigation Strategy: Implement strict network microsegmentation, use tenant-dedicated VLANs or overlay networks, perform regular network config audits, use SDN controllers with RBAC and change management, and monitor east-west traffic for anomalies.

Medium Risk Threats

THR-001 - Edge Layer

Category: Spoofing
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: Medium
Risk Level: Medium
Description: Attacker spoofs client IPs or request headers to bypass IP-based ACLs or geofencing at the edge, gaining access to APIs or bypassing rate limits.
Mitigation Strategy: Enforce TLS mutual authentication and client cert validation where applicable, use authenticated session tokens rather than IP ACLs, employ upstream source IP validation (proxy protocol), implement WAF rules to detect header/IP spoofing and anomaly detection for suspicious source patterns.

THR-005 - Frontend Layer

Category: Tampering
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: Medium
Risk Level: Medium
Description: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) attacks cause authenticated users to perform unauthorized actions (e.g., create/destroy resources, change policies) via browser-based requests.
Mitigation Strategy: Implement CSRF tokens for state-changing endpoints, require SameSite cookies, use proper CORS policy with preflight checks, and avoid unsafe HTTP methods without protection.

THR-016 - Integration & Connectors

Category: Information Disclosure
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: Medium
Risk Level: Medium
Description: Misconfigured connectors or overly permissive API calls expose inventory, topology or sensitive configuration data from customer infrastructure to unauthorized parties.
Mitigation Strategy: Apply least privilege to connectors, limit scope of inventory calls, mask or redact sensitive attributes in stored inventories, and require encryption in transit and at rest for connector data.

THR-020 - External Services (Email/SMS/Webhooks)

Category: Information Disclosure
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: Medium
Risk Level: Medium
Description: Notification payloads (email/SMS/webhook) leak sensitive information or PII to third parties, or are sent to compromised endpoints causing data exfiltration.
Mitigation Strategy: Avoid including secrets/PII in notifications, use redaction, encrypt webhook payloads and sign them, validate webhook endpoints on registration, and implement escalation policies that avoid exposing sensitive details.

THR-021 - External Services / Ticketing Integrations

Category: Tampering
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: Medium
Risk Level: Medium
Description: Third-party ticketing integrations or webhooks are compromised or misconfigured and are used to inject malicious content, alter ticket states or gain privileged platform information.
Mitigation Strategy: Harden third-party integrations with signed and authenticated webhooks, enforce minimal data sharing with external ticketing, implement input sanitization for ticket content, and maintain strict access controls for integration credentials.

THR-028 - Project Creation Requirement

Category: Tampering
Likelihood: Medium | Impact: Medium
Risk Level: Medium
Description: Business-logic abuse or race conditions allow attackers to bypass quota/resource checks during project creation (e.g., rapid create requests or manipulated parameters), leading to resource exhaustion or unauthorized project creation.
Mitigation Strategy: Validate resource availability atomically, perform server-side checks and optimistic locking or transactions for quota enforcement, rate-limit project creation per user/tenant, and require approval workflows for large resource allocations.

Total Threats: 28

Appendix D: Complete Requirements Traceability Matrix

This appendix provides complete end-to-end traceability from requirements through threats to controls and verification.

Full Traceability Table

Req ID	Requirement	Category	Sensitivity	Threat IDs	Security Controls	Priority	Verification	Status
REQ-001	User registration and login through the portal wit…	Authentication	High	THR-003, THR-004, THR-005 +7	[OWASP] V4 - Authentication Verification Requirements, [NIST] IA-2, [NIST] AC-2 +2	Critical	Audit registration/de-registration records, review workflow documentation, and sample test user onboarding/offboarding for compliance., Review account management procedures, test account creation/modification/deactivation flows, and verify sessions are invalidated on deactivation.	Pending
REQ-002	Platform administrator registration and onboarding…	Authorization / Administration	High	THR-004, THR-006, THR-007 +5	[NIST] AC-6, [ISO27001] A.9.4, [OWASP] V5 - Access Control Verification Requirements +1	Critical	Review server-side authorization code, perform access control testing (role-based tests), and use automated tests to confirm enforcement., Inspect audit configuration, review samples of privileged action logs, and confirm logs include user, timestamp, action, and target.	Pending
REQ-003	Support registering users to one or more isolated …	Project Management / Authorization	High	THR-004, THR-005, THR-006 +7	None	Medium	Manual Review	Pending
REQ-004	Per-user, per-project policy customization allowin…	Policy Management	High	THR-001, THR-002, THR-006 +7	[NIST] AC-3, [ISO27001] A.9.1, [OWASP] V5 - Access Control Verification Requirements	Critical	Test access enforcement across project boundaries, review policy decision points, and validate denied/allowed scenarios for different roles., Review access control policy documents and role matrices, check alignment with implemented access controls, and perform periodic reviews.	Pending
REQ-005	User-friendly cloud portal GUI to create, manage a…	User Experience / Administration	Medium	THR-003, THR-007, THR-021 +4	None	Medium	Manual Review	Pending
REQ-006	Project creation workflow where registered users c…	Provisioning / Resource Management	High	THR-001, THR-002, THR-004 +7	[NIST] PL-2, [ISO27001] A.8.1, [OWASP] V7 - Business Logic Verification Requirements	High	Inspect asset inventory, test project creation flows against inventory data, and review quota update transactions., Attempt project creation requests that exceed quotas, inspect enforcement logic, and review handling of concurrent provisioning attempts.	Pending
REQ-007	Cloud resource administration capability to deploy…	Infrastructure Provisioning	High	THR-003, THR-004, THR-005 +7	[NIST] CM-2, [ISO27001] A.12.1, [OWASP] V7 - Business Logic Verification Requirements	Critical	Review baseline configuration documents, inspect deployed instances for compliance, and perform configuration drift scans., Review operational procedures, observe provisioning/decommissioning runs, and verify data sanitization after resource destruction.	Pending
REQ-008	Project credential and secrets management: per-pro…	Secrets Management / Data Protection	High	THR-001, THR-002, THR-006 +7	[NIST] IA-5, [ISO27001] A.10.1, [OWASP] V6 - Sensitive Data Protection Verification Requirements	Critical	Review cryptographic policy, inspect encryption configurations, and validate key management practices (HSM/KMS use)., Inspect secret storage configuration, verify rotation schedules, and test revocation and access controls for secrets.	Pending
REQ-009	Strict multi-tenant project isolation across compu…	Multi-Tenancy / Network Security	High	THR-006, THR-007, THR-008 +7	[NIST] SC-2, [ISO27001] A.13.1, [OWASP] V5 - Access Control Verification Requirements	Critical	Perform targeted tests for tenant isolation, inspect data access paths for tenant ID enforcement, and review caching/session partitioning., Review network configurations and policies, test for lateral movement between tenant segments, and monitor logs for cross-tenant flows.	Pending
REQ-010	Integrated monitoring and analytics for infrastruc…	Monitoring & Analytics	Medium	THR-004, THR-006, THR-007 +7	[NIST] AU-6, [ISO27001] A.12.4, [OWASP] V10 - Logging and Monitoring Verification Requirements	High	Inspect logging configuration, check retention and log review procedures, and review alerts/dashboards produced by analytics., Review logging instrumentation, confirm central aggregation and secure transport, and test correlation across multiple data sources.	Pending
REQ-011	Automated AI-assisted fault detection and anomaly …	Monitoring / Automation	Medium	THR-018	[NIST] SI-4, [ISO27001] A.12.4, [OWASP] V10 - Logging and Monitoring Verification Requirements	High	Validate monitoring coverage, review detection model performance metrics, and test alerting workflows triggered by AI-detected events., Review data ingestion pipelines, validate event types fed into AI models, and inspect alerting logs and escalations.	Pending
REQ-012	Automated capacity warnings and thresholds per res…	Capacity Management	Medium	THR-005, THR-008, THR-014 +7	[NIST] CM-8, [ISO27001] A.12.1, [OWASP] V10 - Logging and Monitoring Verification Requirements	High	Check metric endpoints and exported metrics, validate alert rules trigger under simulated load, and review alert history., Compare inventory against actual resources, test integration between inventory and capacity monitoring, and review generated warnings for accuracy.	Pending
REQ-013	Health and security system to run periodic and on-…	Security & Compliance	High	THR-004, THR-006, THR-007 +7	[NIST] AU-6, [ISO27001] A.12.4, [OWASP] V10 - Logging and Monitoring Verification Requirements	High	Inspect logging configuration, check retention and log review procedures, and review alerts/dashboards produced by analytics., Review logging instrumentation, confirm central aggregation and secure transport, and test correlation across multiple data sources.	Pending
REQ-014	Automated notification system that flags security …	Notifications / Incident Management	Medium	THR-004, THR-005, THR-006 +6	[NIST] CM-8, [ISO27001] A.12.1, [OWASP] V10 - Logging and Monitoring Verification Requirements	High	Check metric endpoints and exported metrics, validate alert rules trigger under simulated load, and review alert history., Compare inventory against actual resources, test integration between inventory and capacity monitoring, and review generated warnings for accuracy.	Pending
REQ-015	Ticketing system integrated with user profiles, pr…	Support / ITSM	Medium	THR-002, THR-004, THR-005 +7	[NIST] AC-6, [ISO27001] A.9.4, [OWASP] V5 - Access Control Verification Requirements +1	Critical	Review server-side authorization code, perform access control testing (role-based tests), and use automated tests to confirm enforcement., Inspect audit configuration, review samples of privileged action logs, and confirm logs include user, timestamp, action, and target.	Pending
REQ-016	Platform administrators have read/write access to …	Administration / Access Control	High	THR-001, THR-003, THR-006 +7	[NIST] AC-6, [ISO27001] A.9.4, [OWASP] V5 - Access Control Verification Requirements +1	Critical	Review server-side authorization code, perform access control testing (role-based tests), and use automated tests to confirm enforcement., Inspect audit configuration, review samples of privileged action logs, and confirm logs include user, timestamp, action, and target.	Pending
REQ-017	Audit logging of user actions, administrative oper…	Logging & Audit	High	THR-004, THR-005, THR-006 +7	[NIST] AU-11, [ISO27001] A.12.4, [OWASP] V10 - Logging and Monitoring Verification Requirements	Critical	Inspect log retention configuration, review periodic log review records, and verify deletion/purge processes respect retention policy., Inspect log signing and immutability controls, attempt authorized/unauthorized modifications in test environments, and review access logs for log stores.	Pending
REQ-018	Role-based notification preferences and a portal d…	Notifications / UX	Low	THR-001, THR-002, THR-003 +7	None	Medium	Manual Review	Pending
REQ-019	APIs and CLI endpoints for creating projects, prov…	Integration / Automation	High	THR-001, THR-004, THR-005 +7	None	Medium	Manual Review	Pending
REQ-020	Data protection measures including encryption at r…	Data Protection	High	THR-001, THR-003, THR-004 +7	None	Medium	Manual Review	Pending
REQ-021	Automated or semi-automated remediation actions (e…	Incident Response / Automation	High	THR-003, THR-005, THR-006 +7	[NIST] IR-4, [ISO27001] A.16.1, [OWASP] V7 - Business Logic Verification Requirements	High	Test automated remediation in controlled environment, review playbook definitions, and verify logging of actions and rollbacks., Review safeguards in automation workflows, perform dry-run tests, and verify audit records and manual override controls function as intended.	Pending
REQ-022	Dashboards for platform-wide analytics accessible …	Reporting / Analytics	Medium	THR-006, THR-007, THR-008 +7	[NIST] AU-2, [ISO27001] A.12.4, [OWASP] V10 - Logging and Monitoring Verification Requirements	High	Review audit event catalog, verify dashboard inclusion of privileged events, and test role-based access to dashboards., Inspect logs feeding dashboards, test access controls on dashboards, and review retention/tamper-evidence controls.	Pending
REQ-023	Support for compliance and reporting: generate acc…	Compliance / Reporting	High	THR-001, THR-003, THR-006 +7	[ISO27001] A.18.1, [NIST] AU-8, [OWASP] V10 - Logging and Monitoring Verification Requirements	High	Check NTP/synchronization configs, review timestamps in sample logs, and test cross-region event correlation., Review compliance mappings, check data localization controls in configuration, and validate that exportable reports/logs meet regulatory needs.	Pending
REQ-024	Integration points for existing infrastructure: co…	Integration / Interoperability	Medium	THR-006, THR-014, THR-015 +7	None	Medium	Manual Review	Pending
REQ-025	Operational policies and controls such as role-bas…	Operations / Governance	Medium	THR-005, THR-006, THR-008 +5	None	Medium	Manual Review	Pending

Total Requirements Tracked: 25

Detailed Requirement Mappings

The following section provides detailed traceability for each requirement:

REQ-001: User registration and login through the portal with secure password policies, account verification, …

Related Threats:

THR-003: Persistent or reflected XSS in the web SPA allows attackers to steal UI session …
THR-004: Misconfigured OAuth2/OIDC SSO or insecure token validation allows an attacker to…
THR-005: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) attacks cause authenticated users to perform u…
THR-006: Credential theft (phishing, credential stuffing) or weak password policies allow…
THR-007: Broken or mis-implemented RBAC allows lower-privilege users to escalate to proje…
…and 5 more threats

Security Controls:

[OWASP] V4 - Authentication Verification Requirements: [OWASP] Verify that passwords are stored using a strong adaptive hashing function (e.g.,…
[NIST] IA-2: [NIST] The information system uniquely identifies and authenticates organizational user…
[NIST] AC-2: [NIST] The information system manages information system accounts, including establishi…
[ISO27001] A.9.2: [ISO27001] A formal user registration and de-registration process should be implemented to …
[OWASP] V2 - Session Management Verification Requirements: [OWASP] Verify that sessions are expired after a sensible period of inactivity and absol…

Verification: Audit registration/de-registration records, review workflow documentation, and sample test user onboarding/offboarding for compliance., Review account management procedures, test account creation/modification/deactivation flows, and verify sessions are invalidated on deactivation., Test authentication flows to confirm unique IDs are enforced; review identity store for uniqueness; inspect authentication logs for correct mapping of identities., Inspect session configuration, perform tests to confirm timeout behavior, and review token lifetimes and cookie flags in headers., Review code or configuration showing adaptive hashing use; verify salts and work factor values; perform static analysis and inspect password storage in a test database.

Priority: Critical | Status: Pending

REQ-002: Platform administrator registration and onboarding with elevated role provisioning, just-in-time adm…

Related Threats:

THR-004: Misconfigured OAuth2/OIDC SSO or insecure token validation allows an attacker to…
THR-006: Credential theft (phishing, credential stuffing) or weak password policies allow…
THR-007: Broken or mis-implemented RBAC allows lower-privilege users to escalate to proje…
THR-008: Unauthorized modification of project policies, quotas or provisioning requests t…
THR-013: A compromised service account or admin deletes or forges audit entries, preventi…
…and 3 more threats

Security Controls:

[NIST] AC-6: [NIST] The information system enforces the most restrictive set of rights/privileges or…
[ISO27001] A.9.4: [ISO27001] Access to systems and applications should be restricted based on the access cont…
[OWASP] V5 - Access Control Verification Requirements: [OWASP] Verify that access control checks are performed on the server side for all funct…
[NIST] AU-2: [NIST] The information system determines and documents the types of events that the sys…

Verification: Review server-side authorization code, perform access control testing (role-based tests), and use automated tests to confirm enforcement., Inspect audit configuration, review samples of privileged action logs, and confirm logs include user, timestamp, action, and target., Review role definitions, test that admin accounts cannot perform non-authorized actions, and inspect privilege escalation controls and logs., Review access control policy, test administrative access restrictions, and verify MFA enforcement for admin accounts.

Priority: Critical | Status: Pending

REQ-003: Support registering users to one or more isolated project spaces with the ability to assign roles (l…

Related Threats:

THR-004: Misconfigured OAuth2/OIDC SSO or insecure token validation allows an attacker to…
THR-005: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) attacks cause authenticated users to perform u…
THR-006: Credential theft (phishing, credential stuffing) or weak password policies allow…
THR-007: Broken or mis-implemented RBAC allows lower-privilege users to escalate to proje…
THR-008: Unauthorized modification of project policies, quotas or provisioning requests t…
…and 5 more threats

Verification: Manual Review

Priority: Medium | Status: Pending

REQ-004: Per-user, per-project policy customization allowing override of default role policies, constraints o…

Related Threats:

THR-001: Attacker spoofs client IPs or request headers to bypass IP-based ACLs or geofenc…
THR-002: Man-in-the-middle (MITM) or tampering between edge TLS termination and internal …
THR-006: Credential theft (phishing, credential stuffing) or weak password policies allow…
THR-007: Broken or mis-implemented RBAC allows lower-privilege users to escalate to proje…
THR-008: Unauthorized modification of project policies, quotas or provisioning requests t…
…and 5 more threats

Security Controls:

[NIST] AC-3: [NIST] The information system enforces approved authorizations for logical access to in…
[ISO27001] A.9.1: [ISO27001] Access control policy should be established, documented and reviewed based on bu…
[OWASP] V5 - Access Control Verification Requirements: [OWASP] Verify that role-based access control is implemented correctly and that role mem…

Verification: Test access enforcement across project boundaries, review policy decision points, and validate denied/allowed scenarios for different roles., Review access control policy documents and role matrices, check alignment with implemented access controls, and perform periodic reviews., Review role assignment workflows, inspect role permission data, and perform tests to ensure proper enforcement and isolation between projects.

Priority: Critical | Status: Pending

REQ-005: User-friendly cloud portal GUI to create, manage and administer projects, with role-based content re…

Related Threats:

THR-003: Persistent or reflected XSS in the web SPA allows attackers to steal UI session …
THR-007: Broken or mis-implemented RBAC allows lower-privilege users to escalate to proje…
THR-021: Third-party ticketing integrations or webhooks are compromised or misconfigured …
THR-022: Large-scale DDoS attack saturates the edge WAF/load balancer or upstream resourc…
THR-025: SQL injection or other code injection vulnerabilities in APIs allow attackers to…
…and 2 more threats

Verification: Manual Review

Priority: Medium | Status: Pending

REQ-006: Project creation workflow where registered users can request and create projects, define quotas, req…

Related Threats:

THR-001: Attacker spoofs client IPs or request headers to bypass IP-based ACLs or geofenc…
THR-002: Man-in-the-middle (MITM) or tampering between edge TLS termination and internal …
THR-004: Misconfigured OAuth2/OIDC SSO or insecure token validation allows an attacker to…
THR-005: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) attacks cause authenticated users to perform u…
THR-006: Credential theft (phishing, credential stuffing) or weak password policies allow…
…and 5 more threats

Security Controls:

[NIST] PL-2: [NIST] Develop, document, and disseminate system and communications protection policy a…
[ISO27001] A.8.1: [ISO27001] Assets associated with information and information processing facilities should …
[OWASP] V7 - Business Logic Verification Requirements: [OWASP] Verify that the application enforces resource limits and quotas to prevent abuse…

Verification: Inspect asset inventory, test project creation flows against inventory data, and review quota update transactions., Attempt project creation requests that exceed quotas, inspect enforcement logic, and review handling of concurrent provisioning attempts., Review documented procedures, inspect automation enforcing quota checks, and perform provision-request tests that exceed quotas to confirm denial.

Priority: High | Status: Pending

REQ-007: Cloud resource administration capability to deploy, configure, scale and destroy VNFs, CNFs, applica…

Related Threats:

THR-003: Persistent or reflected XSS in the web SPA allows attackers to steal UI session …
THR-004: Misconfigured OAuth2/OIDC SSO or insecure token validation allows an attacker to…
THR-005: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) attacks cause authenticated users to perform u…
THR-006: Credential theft (phishing, credential stuffing) or weak password policies allow…
THR-007: Broken or mis-implemented RBAC allows lower-privilege users to escalate to proje…
…and 5 more threats

Security Controls:

[NIST] CM-2: [NIST] Develop, document, and maintain under configuration control, a current baseline …
[ISO27001] A.12.1: [ISO27001] Operating procedures should be documented, maintained and made available to all …
[OWASP] V7 - Business Logic Verification Requirements: [OWASP] Verify that state transitions and business transactions are handled correctly to…

Verification: Review baseline configuration documents, inspect deployed instances for compliance, and perform configuration drift scans., Review operational procedures, observe provisioning/decommissioning runs, and verify data sanitization after resource destruction., Conduct concurrency and failure-injection tests on provisioning APIs and review orchestration logs for proper rollback and state transitions.

Priority: Critical | Status: Pending

REQ-008: Project credential and secrets management: per-project credential stores, role-limited access to sec…

Related Threats:

THR-001: Attacker spoofs client IPs or request headers to bypass IP-based ACLs or geofenc…
THR-002: Man-in-the-middle (MITM) or tampering between edge TLS termination and internal …
THR-006: Credential theft (phishing, credential stuffing) or weak password policies allow…
THR-007: Broken or mis-implemented RBAC allows lower-privilege users to escalate to proje…
THR-008: Unauthorized modification of project policies, quotas or provisioning requests t…
…and 5 more threats

Security Controls:

[NIST] IA-5: [NIST] The organization manages information system authenticators (e.g., passwords, tok…
[ISO27001] A.10.1: [ISO27001] A policy on the use of cryptographic controls for protection of information shou…
[OWASP] V6 - Sensitive Data Protection Verification Requirements: [OWASP] Verify that application secrets and credentials are stored securely using an app…

Verification: Review cryptographic policy, inspect encryption configurations, and validate key management practices (HSM/KMS use)., Inspect secret storage configuration, verify rotation schedules, and test revocation and access controls for secrets., Perform secret scanning in code repositories, inspect runtime retrieval from secret manager, and verify no credentials are in source.

Priority: Critical | Status: Pending

REQ-009: Strict multi-tenant project isolation across compute, network (segmentation), storage and management…

Related Threats:

THR-006: Credential theft (phishing, credential stuffing) or weak password policies allow…
THR-007: Broken or mis-implemented RBAC allows lower-privilege users to escalate to proje…
THR-008: Unauthorized modification of project policies, quotas or provisioning requests t…
THR-010: Cross-tenant data leakage through application bugs, caching misconfigurations, t…
THR-015: Malicious or misrouted orchestration commands from connectors or compromised orc…
…and 5 more threats

Security Controls:

[NIST] SC-2: [NIST] The system partitions user functionality and data to separate users and prevent …
[ISO27001] A.13.1: [ISO27001] Networks should be managed and controlled to protect information in systems and …
[OWASP] V5 - Access Control Verification Requirements: [OWASP] Verify that multi-tenant applications enforce strict logical separation between …

Verification: Perform targeted tests for tenant isolation, inspect data access paths for tenant ID enforcement, and review caching/session partitioning., Review network configurations and policies, test for lateral movement between tenant segments, and monitor logs for cross-tenant flows., Penetration tests for cross-tenant access, review segmentation rules, and verify that storage and compute isolation controls are enforced.

Priority: Critical | Status: Pending

REQ-010: Integrated monitoring and analytics for infrastructure, network, and application metrics with multi-…

Related Threats:

THR-004: Misconfigured OAuth2/OIDC SSO or insecure token validation allows an attacker to…
THR-006: Credential theft (phishing, credential stuffing) or weak password policies allow…
THR-007: Broken or mis-implemented RBAC allows lower-privilege users to escalate to proje…
THR-008: Unauthorized modification of project policies, quotas or provisioning requests t…
THR-009: Insufficient or tamperable audit logs allow malicious actors to repudiate action…
…and 5 more threats

Security Controls:

[NIST] AU-6: [NIST] The organization reviews and analyzes information system audit records and repor…
[ISO27001] A.12.4: [ISO27001] Event logs recording user activities, exceptions and information security events…
[OWASP] V10 - Logging and Monitoring Verification Requirements: [OWASP] Verify that the application produces sufficient logging and that logs are aggreg…

Verification: Inspect logging configuration, check retention and log review procedures, and review alerts/dashboards produced by analytics., Review logging instrumentation, confirm central aggregation and secure transport, and test correlation across multiple data sources., Verify log aggregation, review analytics rules, and check incident reports generated from monitoring outputs.

Priority: High | Status: Pending

REQ-011: Automated AI-assisted fault detection and anomaly detection with configurable sensitivity, explainab…

Related Threats:

THR-018: Adversarial input or poisoning of metrics/telemetry to confuse the AI anomaly en…

Security Controls:

[NIST] SI-4: [NIST] The organization monitors the information system to detect attacks and indicator…
[ISO27001] A.12.4: [ISO27001] Event logs recording user activities, exceptions and information security events…
[OWASP] V10 - Logging and Monitoring Verification Requirements: [OWASP] Verify that the application integrates with alerting and incident response syste…

Verification: Validate monitoring coverage, review detection model performance metrics, and test alerting workflows triggered by AI-detected events., Review data ingestion pipelines, validate event types fed into AI models, and inspect alerting logs and escalations., Trigger synthetic faults to validate alert generation and workflow integration, and review alert contents for sufficient context.

Priority: High | Status: Pending

REQ-012: Automated capacity warnings and thresholds per resource type and per project, with proactive notific…

Related Threats:

THR-005: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) attacks cause authenticated users to perform u…
THR-008: Unauthorized modification of project policies, quotas or provisioning requests t…
THR-014: Compromise of integration/connector credentials (API keys, service accounts) per…
THR-018: Adversarial input or poisoning of metrics/telemetry to confuse the AI anomaly en…
THR-020: Notification payloads (email/SMS/webhook) leak sensitive information or PII to t…
…and 5 more threats

Security Controls:

[NIST] CM-8: [NIST] The organization develops and maintains an inventory of information system compo…
[ISO27001] A.12.1: [ISO27001] Operating procedures should be documented, maintained and made available to all …
[OWASP] V10 - Logging and Monitoring Verification Requirements: [OWASP] Verify that the application exposes necessary metrics and integrates with monito…

Verification: Check metric endpoints and exported metrics, validate alert rules trigger under simulated load, and review alert history., Compare inventory against actual resources, test integration between inventory and capacity monitoring, and review generated warnings for accuracy., Review procedures and threshold definitions, test automated warnings by simulating high utilization, and review escalation logs.

Priority: High | Status: Pending

REQ-013: Health and security system to run periodic and on-demand checks (vulnerability scans, configuration …

Related Threats:

THR-004: Misconfigured OAuth2/OIDC SSO or insecure token validation allows an attacker to…
THR-006: Credential theft (phishing, credential stuffing) or weak password policies allow…
THR-007: Broken or mis-implemented RBAC allows lower-privilege users to escalate to proje…
THR-008: Unauthorized modification of project policies, quotas or provisioning requests t…
THR-009: Insufficient or tamperable audit logs allow malicious actors to repudiate action…
…and 5 more threats

Security Controls:

[NIST] AU-6: [NIST] The organization reviews and analyzes information system audit records and repor…
[ISO27001] A.12.4: [ISO27001] Event logs recording user activities, exceptions and information security events…
[OWASP] V10 - Logging and Monitoring Verification Requirements: [OWASP] Verify that the application produces sufficient logging and that logs are aggreg…

Priority: High | Status: Pending

REQ-014: Automated notification system that flags security risks, vulnerabilities, capacity warnings and oper…

Related Threats:

THR-004: Misconfigured OAuth2/OIDC SSO or insecure token validation allows an attacker to…
THR-005: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) attacks cause authenticated users to perform u…
THR-006: Credential theft (phishing, credential stuffing) or weak password policies allow…
THR-007: Broken or mis-implemented RBAC allows lower-privilege users to escalate to proje…
THR-017: Telemetry, logs or metrics inadvertently contain sensitive information (credenti…
…and 4 more threats

Security Controls:

[NIST] CM-8: [NIST] The organization develops and maintains an inventory of information system compo…
[ISO27001] A.12.1: [ISO27001] Operating procedures should be documented, maintained and made available to all …
[OWASP] V10 - Logging and Monitoring Verification Requirements: [OWASP] Verify that the application exposes necessary metrics and integrates with monito…

Priority: High | Status: Pending

REQ-015: Ticketing system integrated with user profiles, project contexts and platform admin workflows allowi…

Related Threats:

THR-002: Man-in-the-middle (MITM) or tampering between edge TLS termination and internal …
THR-004: Misconfigured OAuth2/OIDC SSO or insecure token validation allows an attacker to…
THR-005: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) attacks cause authenticated users to perform u…
THR-006: Credential theft (phishing, credential stuffing) or weak password policies allow…
THR-007: Broken or mis-implemented RBAC allows lower-privilege users to escalate to proje…
…and 5 more threats

Security Controls:

[NIST] AC-6: [NIST] The information system enforces the most restrictive set of rights/privileges or…
[ISO27001] A.9.4: [ISO27001] Access to systems and applications should be restricted based on the access cont…
[OWASP] V5 - Access Control Verification Requirements: [OWASP] Verify that access control checks are performed on the server side for all funct…
[NIST] AU-2: [NIST] The information system determines and documents the types of events that the sys…

Priority: Critical | Status: Pending

REQ-016: Platform administrators have read/write access to all projects for support operations, constrained b…

Related Threats:

THR-001: Attacker spoofs client IPs or request headers to bypass IP-based ACLs or geofenc…
THR-003: Persistent or reflected XSS in the web SPA allows attackers to steal UI session …
THR-006: Credential theft (phishing, credential stuffing) or weak password policies allow…
THR-007: Broken or mis-implemented RBAC allows lower-privilege users to escalate to proje…
THR-009: Insufficient or tamperable audit logs allow malicious actors to repudiate action…
…and 5 more threats

Security Controls:

[NIST] AC-6: [NIST] The information system enforces the most restrictive set of rights/privileges or…
[ISO27001] A.9.4: [ISO27001] Access to systems and applications should be restricted based on the access cont…
[OWASP] V5 - Access Control Verification Requirements: [OWASP] Verify that access control checks are performed on the server side for all funct…
[NIST] AU-2: [NIST] The information system determines and documents the types of events that the sys…

Priority: Critical | Status: Pending

REQ-018: Role-based notification preferences and a portal dashboard listing all notifications relevant to the…

Related Threats:

THR-001: Attacker spoofs client IPs or request headers to bypass IP-based ACLs or geofenc…
THR-002: Man-in-the-middle (MITM) or tampering between edge TLS termination and internal …
THR-003: Persistent or reflected XSS in the web SPA allows attackers to steal UI session …
THR-004: Misconfigured OAuth2/OIDC SSO or insecure token validation allows an attacker to…
THR-005: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) attacks cause authenticated users to perform u…
…and 5 more threats

Verification: Manual Review

Priority: Medium | Status: Pending

REQ-019: APIs and CLI endpoints for creating projects, provisioning resources, querying monitoring data, mana…

Related Threats:

THR-001: Attacker spoofs client IPs or request headers to bypass IP-based ACLs or geofenc…
THR-004: Misconfigured OAuth2/OIDC SSO or insecure token validation allows an attacker to…
THR-005: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) attacks cause authenticated users to perform u…
THR-006: Credential theft (phishing, credential stuffing) or weak password policies allow…
THR-007: Broken or mis-implemented RBAC allows lower-privilege users to escalate to proje…
…and 5 more threats

Verification: Manual Review

Priority: Medium | Status: Pending

REQ-020: Data protection measures including encryption at rest and in transit, role-limited access to telemet…

Related Threats:

THR-001: Attacker spoofs client IPs or request headers to bypass IP-based ACLs or geofenc…
THR-003: Persistent or reflected XSS in the web SPA allows attackers to steal UI session …
THR-004: Misconfigured OAuth2/OIDC SSO or insecure token validation allows an attacker to…
THR-005: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) attacks cause authenticated users to perform u…
THR-006: Credential theft (phishing, credential stuffing) or weak password policies allow…
…and 5 more threats

Verification: Manual Review

Priority: Medium | Status: Pending

Showing detailed mappings for 20 of 25 requirements.

Appendix E: References

End of Report - Generated by Security Requirements Analysis System v2.0 Generated: 2025-11-19 15:16:52

--- title: "Security Requirements Analysis Report" subtitle: "Comprehensive Security Analysis with Interactive Dashboard" author: "Security Requirements System v2.0" date: "2025-11-19 15:16:52" format: html: page-layout: full toc: true toc-depth: 3 toc-location: left embed-resources: true code-fold: true code-tools: true fig-width: 8 fig-height: 5 fig-dpi: 300 number-sections: false smooth-scroll: true mermaid-format: svg execute: echo: false warning: false message: false freeze: auto jupyter: python3 --- *Generated: 2025-11-19 15:16:52* *Report Version: 2.0 - Comprehensive Security Analysis* --- ## 1. Executive Summary This section provides a high-level overview of the security requirements analysis, presenting key findings, validation results, and an interactive dashboard for stakeholders and decision-makers. The executive summary enables rapid comprehension of the security posture, critical risks, control coverage, and compliance status without requiring detailed technical knowledge. ### 1.1. Purpose and Scope **Purpose** This document presents a comprehensive security requirements analysis for the proposed application, systematically mapping high-level business requirements to specific, actionable security controls aligned with multiple industry standards: OWASP Application Security Verification Standard (ASVS), NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5, and ISO 27001:2022. The analysis provides a complete security requirements specification that guides secure system design, implementation, and verification. **Scope** This analysis encompasses all functional requirements provided, delivering comprehensive coverage across multiple security domains: - **Requirements Analysis**: Systematic decomposition and security-relevant extraction from business requirements - **Stakeholder Analysis**: Identification of stakeholders, trust boundaries, and security responsibilities - **Threat Modeling**: Systematic identification and assessment of security threats using STRIDE methodology - **Security Control Mapping**: Mapping requirements to multi-standard security controls (OWASP ASVS, NIST SP 800-53, ISO 27001) with detailed implementation guidance - **Compliance Requirements**: Identification of regulatory and legal compliance obligations - **Architectural Security**: Security architecture recommendations and design patterns - **Implementation Planning**: Prioritized, phased implementation roadmap - **Verification Strategies**: Testing and validation approaches for security controls The analysis provides both strategic guidance for security planning and tactical details for implementation teams. ### 1.2. Key Findings This section summarizes the most critical results from the security requirements analysis, providing executives and stakeholders with immediate insight into the security posture and validation status. **Analysis Metrics** - **Validation Score**: 0.84/1.0 - **Validation Status**: ✅ Passed - **Analysis Iterations**: 1 - **Requirements Analyzed**: 20 **Application Summary** A web-based Multi-Tenancy Private Cloud Management Platform that enables users and administrators to create and manage isolated project workspaces (tenants), provision and govern cloud resources (VNFs, CNFs, applications, networks), enforce per-project and per-user policies, and provide unified monitoring, analytics, health & security checks, notifications and ticketing — all while maintaining strong isolation, auditability and administrative support capabilities. The validation score reflects the quality and completeness of the security requirements across five dimensions: completeness, consistency, correctness, implementability, and alignment with business objectives. A score of 0.8 or higher indicates that the requirements are ready for implementation, while scores below this threshold may require refinement before proceeding. ### 1.3. Security Overview Dashboard This interactive dashboard provides executive-level visualization of key security metrics and trends, enabling rapid assessment of the security posture through intuitive charts and data visualizations. The dashboard presents critical information across multiple dimensions: risk distribution, security control coverage, compliance status, implementation progress, and data quality metrics. For optimal viewing experience, render this document with Quarto to enable interactive chart functionality, allowing stakeholders to explore data dynamically and drill down into specific areas of interest. ::: {.panel-tabset} #### Risk ```{python} #| label: load-metrics #| echo: false #| warning: false import json import pandas as pd from pathlib import Path # Load dashboard data artifacts artifacts_path = Path("artifacts_20251119_151652") threats = pd.read_json(artifacts_path / "threats.json") asvs = pd.read_json(artifacts_path / "asvs_mapping.json") priorities = pd.read_json(artifacts_path / "priorities.json") compliance = pd.read_json(artifacts_path / "compliance.json") delivery = pd.read_json(artifacts_path / "delivery.json") coverage = pd.read_json(artifacts_path / "coverage.json") validation = json.loads((artifacts_path / "validation.json").read_text()) ``` ```{python} #| label: fig-risk-heatmap #| fig-cap: "Risk heat map showing threat distribution by likelihood and impact (1-5 scale)." #| echo: false #| warning: false try: import plotly.express as px import plotly.graph_objects as go # Create risk heatmap heat = threats.groupby(["likelihood", "impact"]).size().reset_index(name="count") # Create a complete 5x5 grid import numpy as np l_range = range(1, 6) i_range = range(1, 6) grid_data = [] for l in l_range: for i in i_range: count = heat[(heat["likelihood"] == l) & (heat["impact"] == i)]["count"].sum() grid_data.append({"likelihood": l, "impact": i, "count": int(count)}) heat_df = pd.DataFrame(grid_data) pivot = heat_df.pivot(index="impact", columns="likelihood", values="count").fillna(0) fig_risk = go.Figure(data=go.Heatmap( z=pivot.values, x=[f"L{x}" for x in pivot.columns], y=[f"I{y}" for y in pivot.index], text=pivot.values, texttemplate="%{text:.0f}", textfont={"size": 12}, colorscale="YlOrRd", hoverongaps=False )) fig_risk.update_layout( title="Threat Risk Matrix (Likelihood × Impact)", xaxis_title="Likelihood →", yaxis_title="Impact →", height=400 ) fig_risk.show() except Exception as e: print(f"⚠️ Could not generate risk heatmap: {e}") print("\nRisk Distribution (Static):") print(threats.groupby("risk_level").size()) ``` **Top 5 Highest Risks:** ```{python} #| echo: false #| output: asis #| warning: false top_risks = threats.nlargest(5, ["likelihood", "impact"]) for idx, risk_row in top_risks.iterrows(): risk_id = risk_row['id'] risk_level = risk_row['risk_level'] component = risk_row.get('component', 'Unknown Component') category = risk_row.get('category', 'N/A') likelihood = risk_row.get('likelihood', 'N/A') impact = risk_row.get('impact', 'N/A') description = risk_row['description'] print(f"**{risk_id}** ({risk_level}) - {component}") print(f"- **Category:** {category}") print(f"- **Likelihood:** {likelihood} | **Impact:** {impact}") print(f"- **Description:** {description}") print("") ``` #### Controls ```{python} #| label: fig-standard-distribution #| fig-cap: "Security control distribution by standard (OWASP, NIST, ISO 27001)." #| echo: false #| warning: false try: import plotly.express as px # Group by standard if "standard" in asvs.columns: dist = asvs.groupby("standard").size().reset_index(name="controls") dist = dist.sort_values("controls", ascending=False) # Add percentage for better context total = dist["controls"].sum() dist["percentage"] = (dist["controls"] / total * 100).round(1) # Map standard codes to display names standard_names = { "OWASP": "OWASP ASVS", "NIST": "NIST SP 800-53", "ISO27001": "ISO 27001:2022" } dist["standard_name"] = dist["standard"].map(standard_names).fillna(dist["standard"]) fig_std = px.bar( dist, x="standard_name", y="controls", text=[f"{c}<br>({p}%)" for c, p in zip(dist["controls"], dist["percentage"])], title="Security Controls by Standard", labels={"standard_name": "Security Standard", "controls": "Control Count"}, color="controls", color_continuous_scale="Blues" ) fig_std.update_traces(textposition='outside') fig_std.update_layout(height=400, showlegend=False) fig_std.show() else: print("Standard distribution data not available.") except Exception as e: print(f"⚠️ Could not generate standard distribution chart: {e}") ``` ```{python} #| label: fig-asvs-distribution #| fig-cap: "OWASP ASVS control distribution by verification category (V1-V14)." #| echo: false #| warning: false try: import plotly.express as px # Filter to OWASP controls only asvs_owasp = asvs[asvs["standard"] == "OWASP"] if "standard" in asvs.columns else asvs # Group by ASVS category dist = asvs_owasp.groupby("v_category").size().reset_index(name="controls") dist = dist.sort_values("v_category") # Add percentage for better context total = dist["controls"].sum() dist["percentage"] = (dist["controls"] / total * 100).round(1) if total > 0 else 0 fig_asvs = px.bar( dist, x="v_category", y="controls", text=[f"{c}<br>({p}%)" for c, p in zip(dist["controls"], dist["percentage"])], title="OWASP ASVS Controls by Verification Category", labels={"v_category": "ASVS Category", "controls": "Control Count"}, color="controls", color_continuous_scale="Blues" ) fig_asvs.update_traces(textposition='outside') fig_asvs.update_layout(height=400, showlegend=False) fig_asvs.show() except Exception as e: print(f"⚠️ Could not generate ASVS chart: {e}") ``` ```{python} #| label: fig-priority-breakdown #| fig-cap: "Security control priority distribution (Critical/High/Medium/Low)." #| echo: false #| warning: false try: import plotly.express as px # Priority breakdown with color mapping color_map = { "Critical": "#c62828", "High": "#f57c00", "Medium": "#fbc02d", "Low": "#388e3c" } # Sort by priority level priority_order = ["Critical", "High", "Medium", "Low"] priorities_sorted = priorities.set_index("level").reindex(priority_order).reset_index() fig_prio = px.bar( priorities_sorted, x="level", y="count", text="count", title="Control Priority Breakdown", labels={"level": "Priority Level", "count": "Number of Controls"}, color="level", color_discrete_map=color_map ) fig_prio.update_traces(textposition='outside') fig_prio.update_layout(height=400, showlegend=False) fig_prio.show() except Exception as e: print(f"⚠️ Could not generate priority chart: {e}") ``` **Coverage Metrics:** ```{python} #| echo: false #| output: asis #| warning: false total_controls = len(asvs) total_reqs = len(coverage) req_coverage = (coverage["has_controls"].mean() * 100) if not coverage.empty else 0 verif_coverage = (coverage["tests"].gt(0).mean() * 100) if not coverage.empty else 0 # Calculate additional metrics avg_controls_per_req = (total_controls / total_reqs) if total_reqs > 0 else 0 critical_controls = len(asvs[asvs["priority"] == "Critical"]) if "priority" in asvs.columns else 0 # Calculate standard distribution if available if "standard" in asvs.columns: std_counts = asvs["standard"].value_counts() owasp_count = std_counts.get("OWASP", 0) nist_count = std_counts.get("NIST", 0) iso_count = std_counts.get("ISO27001", 0) print(f"- **Total Security Controls Mapped:** {total_controls}") print(f" - OWASP ASVS: {owasp_count} controls") print(f" - NIST SP 800-53: {nist_count} controls") print(f" - ISO 27001: {iso_count} controls") else: print(f"- **Total Security Controls Mapped:** {total_controls} (OWASP ASVS, NIST SP 800-53, ISO 27001)") print(f"- **Requirements with Security Control Mapping:** {req_coverage:.1f}% ({coverage['has_controls'].sum()}/{total_reqs})") print(f"- **Average Controls per Requirement:** {avg_controls_per_req:.1f}") print(f"- **Critical Controls:** {critical_controls} ({critical_controls/total_controls*100:.1f}% of total)" if total_controls > 0 else "- **Critical Controls:** {critical_controls}") print(f"- **Requirements with Verification:** {verif_coverage:.1f}% ({coverage['tests'].gt(0).sum()}/{total_reqs})") print(f"- **Recommended ASVS Level:** L2 (Standard)") ``` #### Compliance ```{python} #| label: fig-compliance-rag #| fig-cap: "Compliance status across all applicable frameworks (Red-Amber-Green rating). Shows regulatory compliance (GDPR, HIPAA, PCI-DSS, etc.) and security standards (OWASP ASVS, NIST SP 800-53, ISO 27001)." #| echo: false #| warning: false try: import plotly.express as px # Show all compliance frameworks (regulatory and security standards) comp_filtered = compliance # Compliance RAG status status_map = { "Compliant": "#2e7d32", "In Progress": "#f9a825", "Gap": "#c62828" } # Sort frameworks alphabetically comp_sorted = comp_filtered.sort_values("framework") fig_comp = px.bar( comp_sorted, x="framework", y=[1] * len(comp_sorted), # Equal height bars color="status", color_discrete_map=status_map, title="Compliance Status Across All Frameworks", labels={"framework": "Framework", "y": ""}, text="status", height=400 ) fig_comp.update_layout(showlegend=True, yaxis_visible=False, yaxis_showticklabels=False) fig_comp.update_traces(textposition='inside') fig_comp.show() except Exception as e: print(f"⚠️ Could not generate compliance chart: {e}") print("\nCompliance Status (Static):") for _, row in compliance.iterrows(): print(f"- **{row['framework']}**: {row['status']}") ``` **Compliance Summary:** ```{python} #| echo: false #| output: asis #| warning: false for _, row in compliance.iterrows(): status_icon = "✅" if row["status"] == "Compliant" else "⚠️" if row["status"] == "In Progress" else "❌" print(f"- {status_icon} **{row['framework']}**: {row['status']} (Next Audit: {row['next_audit']})") ``` #### Delivery ```{python} #| label: fig-delivery-burndown #| fig-cap: "Projected implementation timeline by phase and week (based on priority-based planning)." #| echo: false #| warning: false try: import plotly.express as px import plotly.graph_objects as go # Create burndown chart with planned vs projected completion fig_burn = go.Figure() for phase in delivery["phase"].unique(): phase_data = delivery[delivery["phase"] == phase] # Planned line fig_burn.add_trace(go.Scatter( x=phase_data["week"], y=phase_data["planned"], mode='lines', name=f"{phase} (Planned)", line=dict(dash='dash', color='gray'), showlegend=True )) # Projected completion line fig_burn.add_trace(go.Scatter( x=phase_data["week"], y=phase_data["completed"], mode='lines+markers', name=f"{phase} (Projected)", showlegend=True )) fig_burn.update_layout( title="Security Controls Implementation Timeline (Projected)", xaxis_title="Week", yaxis_title="Number of Controls", height=400, hovermode='x unified' ) fig_burn.show() except Exception as e: print(f"⚠️ Could not generate delivery chart: {e}") ``` **Implementation Timeline (Projected):** ```{python} #| echo: false #| output: asis #| warning: false phase1 = delivery[delivery["phase"].str.contains("Phase 1")] phase2 = delivery[delivery["phase"].str.contains("Phase 2")] if not phase1.empty: p1_progress = (phase1["completed"].iloc[-1] / phase1["planned"].iloc[-1] * 100) if phase1["planned"].iloc[-1] > 0 else 0 print(f"- **Phase 1 (Critical/High):** {p1_progress:.0f}% projected completion (Weeks 1-8)") if not phase2.empty: p2_progress = (phase2["completed"].iloc[-1] / phase2["planned"].iloc[-1] * 100) if phase2["planned"].iloc[-1] > 0 else 0 print(f"- **Phase 2 (Medium):** {p2_progress:.0f}% projected completion (Weeks 9-16)") print(f"- **Phase 3 (Low/Ongoing):** Continuous improvement and monitoring") print(f"") print(f"*Note: Timeline is based on priority-based planning and assumes steady implementation progress.*") ``` #### Data Quality **Validation Metrics:** ```{python} #| echo: false #| output: asis #| warning: false val_score = validation.get("score", 0) val_passed = validation.get("passed", False) dims = validation.get("dims", {}) status_icon = "✅" if val_passed else "⚠️" if val_score >= 0.7 else "❌" print(f"") print(f"**Overall Validation Score:** {status_icon} {val_score:.2f}/1.0") print(f"") if dims: print("**Dimension Scores:**") print(f"") for dim, score in dims.items(): dim_icon = "✅" if score >= 0.8 else "⚠️" if score >= 0.7 else "❌" print(f"- {dim_icon} **{dim.capitalize()}:** {score:.2f}") else: print("*Dimension scores not available.*") ``` ```{python} #| label: fig-data-quality #| fig-cap: "Data quality and coverage metrics." #| echo: false #| warning: false try: import plotly.graph_objects as go # Calculate quality metrics threats_linked_pct = (coverage["has_threat"].mean() * 100) if not coverage.empty else 0 # Calculate average controls per requirement avg_controls_per_req = (total_controls / total_reqs) if total_reqs > 0 else 0 # For the chart, we'll show percentage-based metrics and handle avg controls separately metrics = { "Requirements Mapped": req_coverage, "Threats Linked": threats_linked_pct, "Verification Coverage": verif_coverage, "Avg Controls/Req": avg_controls_per_req * 20, # Scale for visual comparison (multiply by 20 to fit chart scale) "Validation Score": val_score * 100 } # Create custom text labels (show actual values for avg controls, percentages for others) text_labels = [] for key, val in metrics.items(): if key == "Avg Controls/Req": text_labels.append(f"{avg_controls_per_req:.1f}") else: text_labels.append(f"{val:.1f}%") fig_quality = go.Figure(go.Bar( x=list(metrics.values()), y=list(metrics.keys()), orientation='h', text=text_labels, textposition='outside', marker=dict( color=list(metrics.values()), colorscale='RdYlGn', cmin=0, cmax=100 ) )) fig_quality.update_layout( title="Data Quality & Coverage Metrics", xaxis_title="Score / Percentage (%)", xaxis=dict(range=[0, 110]), height=400, showlegend=False ) fig_quality.show() except Exception as e: print(f"⚠️ Could not generate quality chart: {e}") ``` ```{python} #| echo: false #| output: asis #| warning: false # Parser and data quality stats total_entries = len(coverage) with_threats = coverage["has_threat"].sum() with_controls = coverage["has_controls"].sum() with_tests = coverage["tests"].gt(0).sum() print(f"") print(f"**Traceability Matrix:**") print(f"") print(f"- Total Requirements: {total_entries}") print(f"- Linked to Threats: {with_threats} ({with_threats/max(total_entries,1)*100:.1f}%)") print(f"- Mapped to Security Controls: {with_controls} ({with_controls/max(total_entries,1)*100:.1f}%)") print(f"- With Verification: {with_tests} ({with_tests/max(total_entries,1)*100:.1f}%)") print(f"") print(f"**Data Quality:** {"✅ Excellent" if val_score >= 0.8 else "⚠️ Good" if val_score >= 0.7 else "❌ Needs Improvement"}") ``` ::: --- ## 2. Requirements Understanding This section presents a comprehensive analysis of the functional requirements, extracting security-relevant information and establishing the foundation for the security requirements specification. Understanding the functional requirements is essential for identifying security implications, data sensitivity, trust boundaries, and security-critical components. This analysis transforms business requirements into security-aware specifications that inform threat modeling, control selection, and compliance assessment. ### 2.1. High-Level Requirements Analysis The following high-level functional requirements have been identified and analyzed for security implications: 1. User registration and login with role-based access control and session management 2. Platform administrator registration and privileged admin workflows 3. Multi-project membership support with per-user, per-project role assignments 4. Per-user, per-project policy customization and policy inheritance 5. Project creation workflow with quota and resource availability checks 6. Resource provisioning and lifecycle management (deploy/destroy VNFs, CNFs, apps, networks) 7. Project credential management and granular access rules (secrets/keys) 8. Project isolation (multi-tenancy) at compute, network, storage and data planes 9. Integrated monitoring and analytics for cloud, network, infra and applications 10. AI-assisted fault detection and automated alerting/notification 11. Capacity monitoring and automated capacity warning system 12. Health and security scanning (vulnerability, misconfiguration, integrity checks) 13. Notification delivery and role/policy-based notification rules and dashboards 14. Ticketing system for project-to-platform and internal support workflows 15. Platform-wide dashboards for admins with full visibility and audit trails 16. Audit logging and retention for actions, configuration changes and access 17. Policy-driven automated remediation actions (optional/controlled) 18. API and CLI for automation and integration with external systems 19. Secure storage and handling of sensitive data (secrets, credentials, telemetry) 20. Compliance and reporting features (data residency, access reports, exportable logs) ### 2.2. Detailed Requirements Breakdown | Req ID | Requirement | Business Category | Security Sensitivity | Data Classification | |--------|-------------|-------------------|---------------------|---------------------| | REQ-001 | User registration and login through the portal wit... | Authentication | High | Confidential | | REQ-002 | Platform administrator registration and onboarding... | Authorization / Administration | High | Restricted | | REQ-003 | Support registering users to one or more isolated ... | Project Management / Authorization | High | Confidential | | REQ-004 | Per-user, per-project policy customization allowin... | Policy Management | High | Confidential | | REQ-005 | User-friendly cloud portal GUI to create, manage a... | User Experience / Administration | Medium | Internal | | REQ-006 | Project creation workflow where registered users c... | Provisioning / Resource Management | High | Internal | | REQ-007 | Cloud resource administration capability to deploy... | Infrastructure Provisioning | High | Confidential | | REQ-008 | Project credential and secrets management: per-pro... | Secrets Management / Data Protection | High | Restricted | | REQ-009 | Strict multi-tenant project isolation across compu... | Multi-Tenancy / Network Security | High | Confidential | | REQ-010 | Integrated monitoring and analytics for infrastruc... | Monitoring & Analytics | Medium | Internal | | REQ-011 | Automated AI-assisted fault detection and anomaly ... | Monitoring / Automation | Medium | Internal | | REQ-012 | Automated capacity warnings and thresholds per res... | Capacity Management | Medium | Internal | | REQ-013 | Health and security system to run periodic and on-... | Security & Compliance | High | Internal | | REQ-014 | Automated notification system that flags security ... | Notifications / Incident Management | Medium | Internal | | REQ-015 | Ticketing system integrated with user profiles, pr... | Support / ITSM | Medium | Internal | | REQ-016 | Platform administrators have read/write access to ... | Administration / Access Control | High | Restricted | | REQ-017 | Audit logging of user actions, administrative oper... | Logging & Audit | High | Restricted | | REQ-018 | Role-based notification preferences and a portal d... | Notifications / UX | Low | Internal | | REQ-019 | APIs and CLI endpoints for creating projects, prov... | Integration / Automation | High | Confidential | | REQ-020 | Data protection measures including encryption at r... | Data Protection | High | Restricted | | REQ-021 | Automated or semi-automated remediation actions (e... | Incident Response / Automation | High | Internal | | REQ-022 | Dashboards for platform-wide analytics accessible ... | Reporting / Analytics | Medium | Internal | | REQ-023 | Support for compliance and reporting: generate acc... | Compliance / Reporting | High | Restricted | | REQ-024 | Integration points for existing infrastructure: co... | Integration / Interoperability | Medium | Internal | | REQ-025 | Operational policies and controls such as role-bas... | Operations / Governance | Medium | Internal | ### 2.3. Security Context and Regulatory Obligations Applicable regulations and frameworks likely to apply include: GDPR (if processing personal data of EU residents) — data subject rights, lawful basis, data residency and DPIA considerations; Data protection laws like CCPA/CPRA where relevant; ISO/IEC 27001 for an ISMS and SOC 2 for operational security and trust service criteria (security, availability, confidentiality); NIST SP 800-53 / NIST Cybersecurity Framework for controls mapping; CIS Benchmarks for host/network hardening; PCI-DSS only if payment card data is processed (note: platform should avoid storing card data unless necessary); industry-specific regulations (e.g., telecom regulators, critical infrastructure controls) if platform hosts telco/network functions. Applicable obligations: implement strong identity and access management, encryption in transit and at rest, least privilege, logging and monitoring, incident response, data residency and retention policies, breach notification timelines, regular vulnerability scanning/patching, secure software development lifecycle and supply chain risk management. ### 2.4. Assumptions - System will be hosted on private cloud infrastructure managed by the platform operator (on-prem or operator-controlled cloud). - Users have internet access and modern browsers or CLIs to access portal and APIs. - Underlying compute, storage and network platforms expose APIs compatible with integration (e.g., OpenStack, Kubernetes, VMware, SDN controllers). - Tenants/projects are logical isolation domains; some customers may request stronger physical separation (to be negotiated). - Platform administrators are trusted personnel with higher privileges but subject to just-in-time approval and audits. - Telemetry and monitoring agents can be deployed on managed workloads and underlying hosts as needed. - AI/ML components for anomaly detection will be trained on operational telemetry and tuned to reduce false positives. - Users will follow acceptable use policies and security awareness guidance provided during onboarding. ### 2.5. Constraints - Must maintain strong multi-tenant isolation without relying on untrusted tenant-supplied code to modify platform control plane. - Integration is constrained to available APIs on customer-managed infrastructure; pre-built connectors must be developed for each supported platform. - Encryption key management must integrate with an approved KMS/HSM; keys cannot be stored in plaintext on the platform. - Audit log retention and storage capacity must meet regulatory and business retention periods and scale with tenant activity. - Platform must support role-based access control with fine-grained policies; legacy systems that lack RBAC may limit enforcement. - Automated remediation actions must have configurable risk thresholds and human-approval gating for high-impact operations. - Network topology and legacy network devices may restrict segmentation capabilities (e.g., limited VLANs, no microsegmentation support). - Operationally, upgrades and maintenance windows must be scheduled to avoid disrupting tenant SLAs; backward compatibility for APIs should be preserved where feasible. --- ## 3. Stakeholder Analysis This section identifies and analyzes all stakeholders involved in or affected by the system, including users, administrators, external partners, and regulatory bodies. Stakeholder analysis establishes trust boundaries, defines security responsibilities, and identifies potential security concerns from different stakeholder perspectives. Understanding stakeholder relationships and trust boundaries is critical for designing appropriate access controls, authentication mechanisms, and data protection measures. ### 3.1. Identified Stakeholders and User Personas | Role | Privilege Level | Trust Level | Key Security Concerns | |-------------------------------|------------------|------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Platform Administrator | Admin | Trusted | Privilege escalation by malicious insiders, unauthorized access to sensitive project data, account compromise. | | Project Leader | User | Trusted | Mismanagement of project resources, unauthorized project access, potential data leakage to other tenants. | | Project Admin | Admin | Partially Trusted| Inadequate access control enforcement, potential for abuse of elevated privileges, poor policy adherence. | | Project User | User | Partially Trusted| Unauthorized actions on project resources, credential theft, lack of knowledge regarding project policies. | | External Service Integrator | Service Account | Partially Trusted| Insecure API integrations, data exposure due to insufficient permissions, lack of encryption for sensitive data.| | Monitoring System | Service Account | Trusted | False positives leading to alert fatigue, inadequate response to genuine security incidents. | | Notification System | Service Account | Trusted | Failure to deliver critical notifications, unauthorized access to user notification data. | | Cloud Resource Connector | Service Account | Partially Trusted| Misconfiguration leading to resource exposure, lack of proper authentication mechanisms. | | AI Anomaly Detection System | Service Account | Trusted | Inaccurate anomaly detection leading to unnecessary alerts, inability to adapt to new threats. | | User Registration Portal | User | Untrusted | User impersonation, credential stuffing attacks, inadequate validation leading to unauthorized registrations. | ### 3.2. Trust Model Trust boundaries are established at multiple levels including the user interface, API gateway, and backend services. Security mechanisms enforcing these boundaries include multi-factor authentication for all users, role-based access control (RBAC) to ensure users can only access data and functionalities pertinent to their roles, and network segmentation that isolates project environments. For instance, Platform Administrators have access to all project data for management purposes, while Project Leaders can only access and manage their respective projects. The principle of least privilege is implemented by granting users the minimum access rights necessary to perform their tasks, significantly minimizing the risk of data exposure and privilege escalation. Automated monitoring tools are in place to detect anomalies and flag any unauthorized access attempts across trust boundaries, ensuring that stakeholders can only interact with the parts of the system necessary for their role. --- ## 4. System Architecture Analysis ### 4.1. Architectural Overview A web-based multi-tenant private cloud management platform composed of a secured edge and frontend layer (web SPA and CLI), an API gateway and application service plane that implements project, policy, provisioning, monitoring, health/security and notification/ticketing workflows, a resilient data layer (identity, tenant metadata, audit logs, metrics TSDB, secrets vault/KMS), and an integration layer of cloud/infra connectors plus external services (email/SMS/webhooks). Users and CLIs access the system through a hardened load balancer/WAF to the API Gateway which enforces authentication/authorization before routing to core services. Provisioning and orchestration components interact with customer infrastructure connectors that call Kubernetes/OpenStack/VMware APIs. Monitoring and an AI anomaly engine consume metrics and emit alerts to the notification/ticketing subsystem and admin dashboards. Audit logs and encrypted secrets are stored in tamper-evident stores with KMS integration for encryption keys. ### 4.2. Architecture Diagram <style> svg { width: 100% !important; max-width: 100% !important; } .nodeLabel { white-space: normal !important; } </style> ```{mermaid} %%{init: {'theme':'dark'}}%% graph TB subgraph "Edge Layer" LB[Load Balancer / WAF] end subgraph "Frontend Layer" FE[Web App SPA & Admin UI] CLI[CLI & API Clients] end subgraph "Application Services" API[API Gateway & Auth] APP[Core App Services] PROV[Provisioning & Orchestration] POL[Policy & RBAC Engine] MON[Monitoring & Analytics] HS[Health & Security Engine] NOTIF[Notifications & Ticketing] end subgraph "Data Layer" USERDB[User & Identity DB] TENANTDB[Tenant DB & Quotas] AUDIT[Audit Log Store] METRICS[Metrics TSDB] VAULT[Secrets Vault / KMS] end subgraph "Integration & Connectors" CONNECT[Cloud Infra Connectors] K8S[Kubernetes OpenStack VMware] end subgraph "Observability & AI" AI[AI Anomaly Engine] end subgraph "External Services" EXTSVC[Email/SMS/Webhook/CI] end LB --> FE LB --> CLI FE --> API CLI --> API API --> APP API --> POL APP --> PROV APP --> MON APP --> NOTIF PROV --> CONNECT CONNECT --> K8S MON --> METRICS HS --> AUDIT NOTIF --> EXTSVC APP --> USERDB APP --> TENANTDB PROV --> VAULT POL --> TENANTDB MON --> AI AI --> NOTIF ``` ### 4.3. Component Breakdown | Component | Responsibility | Security Criticality | External Dependencies | |-----------|----------------|---------------------|----------------------| | Edge Layer | Ingress protection and routing for user ... | High | WAF/load balancer appliances, CDN (optional) | | Frontend Layer | User-facing Web SPA, Admin UI and CLI/AP... | Medium | Browser ecosystems, OAuth2/OIDC providers (for SSO) optional | | Application Services | Core business logic: API gateway & auth,... | Critical | OAuth2 identity providers / MFA provider, Third-party ticketing integrations (optional) | | Data Layer | Persistent storage for identity, tenant ... | Critical | Enterprise KMS/HSM, Relational DB or distributed datastore | | Integration & Connectors | Adapters to underlying customer/private ... | High | Kubernetes API, OpenStack/VMware APIs | | Observability & AI | Collect, store and analyze metrics/logs;... | High | AI/ML frameworks, Metrics/Logging backends | | External Services | Outbound communication services for noti... | Medium | Email/SMS providers, Webhook/CI endpoints | ### 4.4. Data Flow Analysis Users/CLIs connect via the Edge Layer to the API Gateway which authenticates and authorizes requests. Authenticated requests flow to core app services for project creation, policy evaluation and provisioning. Provisioning requests call Integration Connectors which translate actions to target platform APIs (Kubernetes/OpenStack/VMware); secrets are retrieved from the Vault (KMS-backed) when needed. Telemetry from managed infrastructure and agents is ingested by the Monitoring service into the Metrics TSDB and consumed by the AI Anomaly Engine which issues alerts to the Notification/Ticketing subsystem. Audit events from all services are streamed to the Audit Log Store for tamper-evident retention. Dashboards query the Metrics TSDB, Tenant DB and Audit store for visualizations and exports. ### 4.5. Attack Surface Analysis Primary entry points: Web UI and API Gateway (high risk) — these expose authentication endpoints, project and provisioning APIs and must be protected with strong MFA, rate-limiting, input validation and RBAC. CLI/API tokens and automation endpoints (high risk) — require OAuth2, scoped tokens, short TTLs and granular scopes. Integration connectors to customer infra (high risk) — these hold credentials and can execute provisioning; enforce least-privilege credentials, rotation, and isolation. Secrets Vault and KMS access (critical) — highly sensitive, restrict to service accounts and protected by HSM/KMS policies. Monitoring ingestion endpoints and observability APIs (medium risk) — can be abused to exfiltrate telemetry; restrict visibility by role and encrypt telemetry. Admin console and privileged operations (high risk) — require just-in-time elevation, session recording and privileged session controls. External notification integrations (low-medium risk) — risk of data leakage via misconfigured webhooks or SMS; enforce signing and output filtering. Exposed risks also include supply-chain of connectors and third-party libraries; mitigate with SBOM, vulnerability scanning and secure CI/CD. Overall prioritized mitigations: strong identity and access controls, encryption in transit and at rest, extensive audit logging, network segmentation, least-privilege connectors, input validation and WAF protections. --- ## 5. Threat Modeling This section presents a comprehensive threat analysis of the system architecture and functional requirements. Threat modeling systematically identifies potential security vulnerabilities and attack vectors, enabling proactive risk mitigation through the application of appropriate security controls. ### 5.1. Threat Modeling Methodology This analysis employs the **STRIDE** threat modeling methodology, a systematic framework developed by Microsoft for identifying security threats across six categories: - **Spoofing Identity**: Threats involving impersonation of users or systems - **Tampering with Data**: Threats involving unauthorized modification of data or system components - **Repudiation**: Threats where users deny performing actions (lack of non-repudiation) - **Information Disclosure**: Threats involving unauthorized access to sensitive information - **Denial of Service**: Threats causing disruption or unavailability of system services - **Elevation of Privilege**: Threats allowing unauthorized access to privileged functions For each identified threat, the analysis evaluates **likelihood** (attack complexity and exposure) and **impact** (potential damage to confidentiality, integrity, or availability) to determine overall **risk level**. The methodology ensures comprehensive coverage of security concerns across all system components and interfaces. ### 5.2. Threat Analysis and Risk Assessment #### 5.2.1. Threat Overview The following table provides a quick reference of all identified threats. Detailed analysis including descriptions, mitigation strategies, and residual risk assessment (where available) is provided in the section below. | Threat ID | Component | Category | Risk Level | Likelihood | Impact | |-----------|-----------|----------|------------|-----------|--------| | THR-003 | Frontend Layer | Information Disclosure | Critical | High | High | | THR-006 | Application Services (Auth / Platform Admin) | Spoofing | Critical | High | High | | THR-022 | Edge Layer | Denial of Service | Critical | High | High | | THR-002 | Edge Layer -> Internal Service Links | Tampering | High | Medium | High | | THR-004 | Frontend Layer / Application Services (SSO) | Spoofing | High | Medium | High | | THR-007 | Application Services (RBAC / Policy Management) | Elevation of Privilege | High | Medium | High | | THR-008 | Application Services (Policy & Provisioning APIs) | Tampering | High | Medium | High | | THR-009 | Application Services / Data Layer (Audit Logs) | Repudiation | High | Medium | High | | THR-010 | Application Services / Frontend (Multi-Tenancy Requirement) | Information Disclosure | High | Medium | High | | THR-011 | Data Layer (Secrets/KMS/DB Backups) | Information Disclosure | High | Medium | High | | THR-012 | Data Layer (Metadata & Audit Stores) | Tampering | High | Medium | High | | THR-013 | Data Layer (Audit Logs) | Repudiation | High | Medium | High | | THR-014 | Integration & Connectors | Spoofing | High | Medium | High | | THR-015 | Integration & Connectors | Tampering | High | Medium | High | | THR-017 | Observability & AI | Information Disclosure | High | High | Medium | | THR-018 | Observability & AI | Tampering | High | Medium | High | | THR-019 | Observability & AI (Metrics ingestion) | Denial of Service | High | Medium | High | | THR-023 | Application Services (Provisioning APIs) | Denial of Service | High | Medium | High | | THR-024 | Frontend / CLI / Application Services | Spoofing | High | Medium | High | | THR-025 | Application Services (APIs / Project Definitions) | Tampering | High | Medium | High | | THR-026 | Data Layer / KMS | Information Disclosure | High | Medium | High | | THR-027 | Network / Project Isolation (Integration & Connectors) | Elevation of Privilege | High | Medium | High | | THR-001 | Edge Layer | Spoofing | Medium | Medium | Medium | | THR-005 | Frontend Layer | Tampering | Medium | Medium | Medium | | THR-016 | Integration & Connectors | Information Disclosure | Medium | Medium | Medium | | THR-020 | External Services (Email/SMS/Webhooks) | Information Disclosure | Medium | Medium | Medium | | THR-021 | External Services / Ticketing Integrations | Tampering | Medium | Medium | Medium | | THR-028 | Project Creation Requirement | Tampering | Medium | Medium | Medium | **Total Threats Identified:** 28 #### 5.2.2. Detailed Threat Analysis This section provides comprehensive analysis of each identified threat, including descriptions, mitigation strategies, and residual risk assessment (where controls have been evaluated). Threats are organized by risk level for prioritized review. ##### Critical Risk Threats **THR-003** - Frontend Layer - **Category:** Information Disclosure - **Likelihood:** High | **Impact:** High - **Initial Risk Level:** Critical - **Description:** Persistent or reflected XSS in the web SPA allows attackers to steal UI session tokens, perform actions as victims, or exfiltrate data from the portal. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Enforce strict input validation and output encoding, implement Content Security Policy (CSP), mark session cookies HttpOnly and Secure and use SameSite attributes, use templating frameworks that auto-escape, perform code reviews and automated SAST/DAST scans. - **Controls Applied:** CSP, HttpOnly cookies, Input validation/encoding, SAST/DAST - **Control Effectiveness:** High - **Residual Risk Level:** Low - **Status:** ⚠️ Requires Review **THR-006** - Application Services (Auth / Platform Admin) - **Category:** Spoofing - **Likelihood:** High | **Impact:** High - **Initial Risk Level:** Critical - **Description:** Credential theft (phishing, credential stuffing) or weak password policies allow attacker to gain admin or cross-project access, impersonating privileged users for destructive actions. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Enforce strong password policies, mandatory MFA (hardware tokens for admins), perform credential stuffing detection, implement adaptive authentication, monitor anomalous admin logins and use step-up authentication for sensitive operations. - **Controls Applied:** MFA, Adaptive authentication, Password strength policies - **Control Effectiveness:** High - **Residual Risk Level:** Low - **Status:** ⚠️ Requires Review **THR-022** - Edge Layer - **Category:** Denial of Service - **Likelihood:** High | **Impact:** High - **Initial Risk Level:** Critical - **Description:** Large-scale DDoS attack saturates the edge WAF/load balancer or upstream resources, causing platform-wide outage or degraded provisioning/management capability. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Use multi-layer DDoS protection (scrubbing centers/CDN), autoscaling edge capacity, WAF tuning and behavioral baselining, geo-fencing for management endpoints, and playbooks for failover and incident response. - **Controls Applied:** DDoS scrubbing, CDN/WAF, Autoscaling - **Control Effectiveness:** Medium - **Residual Risk Level:** High - **Status:** ⚠️ Requires Review ##### High Risk Threats **THR-002** - Edge Layer -> Internal Service Links - **Category:** Tampering - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** High - **Initial Risk Level:** High - **Description:** Man-in-the-middle (MITM) or tampering between edge TLS termination and internal services (if internal traffic is unprotected), allowing request modification or credential exposure. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Encrypt internal service-to-service traffic with mTLS, validate certificates (mutual TLS) end-to-end where possible, use strong cipher suites, secure edge management plane, and restrict management network access. - **Controls Applied:** mTLS, Network segmentation, Strong TLS cipher suites - **Control Effectiveness:** High - **Residual Risk Level:** Low - **Status:** ⚠️ Requires Review **THR-004** - Frontend Layer / Application Services (SSO) - **Category:** Spoofing - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** High - **Initial Risk Level:** High - **Description:** Misconfigured OAuth2/OIDC SSO or insecure token validation allows an attacker to forge identity tokens and impersonate users (including admin), or replay tokens from other tenants. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Use proven OIDC libraries with strict token validation (aud, iss, exp), enforce PKCE for public clients, validate JWT signatures against known keys, require MFA for admin/privileged roles, implement strict session management and short-lived tokens. - **Controls Applied:** OIDC token validation, MFA, Short-lived tokens - **Control Effectiveness:** High - **Residual Risk Level:** Low - **Status:** ⚠️ Requires Review **THR-007** - Application Services (RBAC / Policy Management) - **Category:** Elevation of Privilege - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** High - **Initial Risk Level:** High - **Description:** Broken or mis-implemented RBAC allows lower-privilege users to escalate to project admin or platform admin roles (e.g., via vulnerable role assignment APIs or insufficient role checks). - **Mitigation Strategy:** Design RBAC with least privilege and role separation, enforce server-side authorization checks on every API, use authorization libraries/policies (e.g., ABAC or policy engine like OPA), require admin approvals or multi-party approval for role changes. - **Controls Applied:** Server-side RBAC enforcement, Policy engine (OPA), Approval workflows - **Control Effectiveness:** Medium - **Residual Risk Level:** Medium - **Status:** ⚠️ Requires Review **THR-008** - Application Services (Policy & Provisioning APIs) - **Category:** Tampering - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** High - **Initial Risk Level:** High - **Description:** Unauthorized modification of project policies, quotas or provisioning requests through API abuse, IDOR, or insecure direct object references, allowing attackers to change resource allocations or bypass controls. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Validate object access per-request (no client-controlled IDs without server validation), use parameterized queries, implement deny-by-default authorization checks, log and alert on policy changes, and require multi-factor approvals for quota increases. - **Controls Applied:** IDOR protection, Server-side authorization, Audit logging - **Control Effectiveness:** Medium - **Residual Risk Level:** Medium - **Status:** ⚠️ Requires Review **THR-009** - Application Services / Data Layer (Audit Logs) - **Category:** Repudiation - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** High - **Initial Risk Level:** High - **Description:** Insufficient or tamperable audit logs allow malicious actors to repudiate actions (deny having done them) or hide activity; lack of immutable logging prevents incident investigations. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Send audit logs to an append-only tamper-evident store, protect log integrity with HMAC/signing and separate write-only access, replicate logs to an external SIEM, enable immutable retention and alerting on log deletion attempts. - **Controls Applied:** Tamper-evident logs, Immutable retention, External SIEM - **Control Effectiveness:** Medium - **Residual Risk Level:** Medium - **Status:** ⚠️ Requires Review **THR-010** - Application Services / Frontend (Multi-Tenancy Requirement) - **Category:** Information Disclosure - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** High - **Initial Risk Level:** High - **Description:** Cross-tenant data leakage through application bugs, caching misconfigurations, templating errors, or improper filtering of tenant IDs, leading to exposure of tenant metadata or user data across project boundaries. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Enforce strict tenant separation at the service layer, include tenant ID in all access control checks, segregate caches and storage per tenant, perform multitenancy test cases, and run penetration tests focusing on tenant isolation. - **Controls Applied:** Tenant-aware access control, Per-tenant data partitioning, Multitenancy testing - **Control Effectiveness:** Medium - **Residual Risk Level:** Medium - **Status:** ⚠️ Requires Review **THR-011** - Data Layer (Secrets/KMS/DB Backups) - **Category:** Information Disclosure - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** High - **Initial Risk Level:** High - **Description:** Compromise or misconfiguration of the datastore/backups or KMS leading to disclosure of encrypted secrets, credentials, or tenant data (e.g., stolen DB backups or compromised KMS keys). - **Mitigation Strategy:** Use enterprise KMS/HSM with strict key access policies and rotation, encrypt data at rest and backups with different keys, use access control and auditing for key usage, retain minimal plaintext in logs, and implement separation of duties for key management. - **Controls Applied:** Enterprise KMS/HSM, Encrypted backups, Key rotation and access controls - **Control Effectiveness:** High - **Residual Risk Level:** Low - **Status:** ⚠️ Requires Review **THR-012** - Data Layer (Metadata & Audit Stores) - **Category:** Tampering - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** High - **Initial Risk Level:** High - **Description:** Unauthorized alteration of tenant metadata, quota state, or audit logs in the database allowing attackers to change historical records, quotas, or hide activities. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Apply database ACLs with least privilege, use tamper-evident or append-only storage for audits, implement integrity checks and log signing, enable database activity monitoring and block suspicious admin operations, and use multi-region replication with checksums. - **Controls Applied:** DB access controls, Tamper-evident storage, DB activity monitoring - **Control Effectiveness:** Medium - **Residual Risk Level:** Medium - **Status:** ⚠️ Requires Review **THR-013** - Data Layer (Audit Logs) - **Category:** Repudiation - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** High - **Initial Risk Level:** High - **Description:** A compromised service account or admin deletes or forges audit entries, preventing reliable incident reconstruction and enabling attackers to hide actions. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Enforce separation of duty for accounts that can modify logs, restrict log deletion to a minimal set of operations with approvals, stream logs to immutable external systems, and use cryptographic signing of logs. - **Controls Applied:** Immutable logging, Separation of duties, Log signing - **Control Effectiveness:** Medium - **Residual Risk Level:** Medium - **Status:** ⚠️ Requires Review **THR-014** - Integration & Connectors - **Category:** Spoofing - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** High - **Initial Risk Level:** High - **Description:** Compromise of integration/connector credentials (API keys, service accounts) permits attackers to impersonate platform connectors to underlying infrastructure (K8s/OpenStack/VMware) and create/destroy resources or exfiltrate data. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Use short-lived credentials and workload identity (e.g., OIDC for K8s), store credentials in a secrets vault with access controls, enforce least privilege for connector accounts, rotate credentials and audit connector activity, restrict connector management network access with ACLs and mTLS. - **Controls Applied:** Vault-based secrets, Short-lived credentials, Workload identity (OIDC) - **Control Effectiveness:** High - **Residual Risk Level:** Low - **Status:** ⚠️ Requires Review **THR-015** - Integration & Connectors - **Category:** Tampering - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** High - **Initial Risk Level:** High - **Description:** Malicious or misrouted orchestration commands from connectors or compromised orchestration service modify network segmentation or firewall rules, causing lateral movement or external exposure of tenant workloads. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Enforce change control and authorization for network modifications, require multi-person approval for critical network changes, validate connector identity and commands, implement network microsegmentation and monitoring for unauthorized rule changes. - **Controls Applied:** Change control, Network microsegmentation, Connector authentication - **Control Effectiveness:** Medium - **Residual Risk Level:** Medium - **Status:** ⚠️ Requires Review **THR-017** - Observability & AI - **Category:** Information Disclosure - **Likelihood:** High | **Impact:** Medium - **Initial Risk Level:** High - **Description:** Telemetry, logs or metrics inadvertently contain sensitive information (credentials, tokens, PII) that is stored in the metrics/logging backend and accessible to unauthorized users or external ML services. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Scrub PII and secrets from telemetry before ingestion, enforce field-level redaction, use RBAC for observability data, encrypt data at rest in TSDB/logging backends and restrict external ML service access, and perform automated detection of secret patterns. - **Controls Applied:** Log/metric scrubbing, RBAC for observability, Encryption at rest - **Control Effectiveness:** Medium - **Residual Risk Level:** Medium - **Status:** ⚠️ Requires Review **THR-018** - Observability & AI - **Category:** Tampering - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** High - **Initial Risk Level:** High - **Description:** Adversarial input or poisoning of metrics/telemetry to confuse the AI anomaly engine, causing missed detection or false positives leading to disruptive automated remediation or ignored incidents. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Validate and sanitize telemetry inputs, apply anomaly detection robustness techniques and input validation, maintain separate training and operational pipelines, monitor for concept drift, and require human-in-the-loop for high-impact remediation actions. - **Controls Applied:** Telemetry validation, Human-in-the-loop, Model monitoring - **Control Effectiveness:** Medium - **Residual Risk Level:** Medium - **Status:** ⚠️ Requires Review **THR-019** - Observability & AI (Metrics ingestion) - **Category:** Denial of Service - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** High - **Initial Risk Level:** High - **Description:** Flooding of the metrics/log ingestion pipeline or synthetic telemetry spikes that overwhelm storage/processing causing monitoring and alerting outages and blind spots. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Implement rate limiting and ingestion throttling, apply sampling and aggregation at the source, use autoscaling and backpressure mechanisms, provide tiered storage for hot/warm/cold metrics, and protect ingestion endpoints with authentication and network ACLs. - **Controls Applied:** Ingestion rate limiting, Backpressure/autoscaling, Authentication - **Control Effectiveness:** Medium - **Residual Risk Level:** Medium - **Status:** ⚠️ Requires Review **THR-023** - Application Services (Provisioning APIs) - **Category:** Denial of Service - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** High - **Initial Risk Level:** High - **Description:** API abuse, unthrottled provisioning requests or scripted attacks exhaust orchestration resources, DB connections or backend quotas, preventing legitimate operations and causing cascade failures. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Implement API rate limiting, quotas per user/project, circuit breakers for downstream calls, request validation and backoff strategies, and monitoring/alerting for provisioning anomalies. - **Controls Applied:** Rate limiting, Per-tenant quotas, Circuit breakers - **Control Effectiveness:** Medium - **Residual Risk Level:** Medium - **Status:** ⚠️ Requires Review **THR-024** - Frontend / CLI / Application Services - **Category:** Spoofing - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** High - **Initial Risk Level:** High - **Description:** API keys or long-lived tokens exposed in frontend code, browser storage, or CLI configuration allow attackers to impersonate service accounts or users to perform privileged actions. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Avoid embedding long-lived credentials in frontends, use ephemeral tokens and refresh flows, store CLI credentials encrypted and recommend hardware-backed keys for CLI access, rotate keys frequently, and monitor for leaked tokens. - **Controls Applied:** Short-lived tokens, Token rotation, Ephemeral credentials - **Control Effectiveness:** High - **Residual Risk Level:** Low - **Status:** ⚠️ Requires Review **THR-025** - Application Services (APIs / Project Definitions) - **Category:** Tampering - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** High - **Initial Risk Level:** High - **Description:** SQL injection or other code injection vulnerabilities in APIs allow attackers to manipulate database contents, execute arbitrary queries, or run code on backend services. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Use parameterized queries/ORMs, input validation and whitelisting, escape outputs, perform SAST and DAST testing, apply least-privilege DB accounts, and enable DB activity monitoring. - **Controls Applied:** Parameterized queries, SAST/DAST, Least-privilege DB accounts - **Control Effectiveness:** High - **Residual Risk Level:** Low - **Status:** ⚠️ Requires Review **THR-026** - Data Layer / KMS - **Category:** Information Disclosure - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** High - **Initial Risk Level:** High - **Description:** Misconfigured KMS or improper key usage (e.g., reuse of keys across tenants, improper access policies) leads to possible secret exfiltration or ability to decrypt sensitive data across tenants. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Use tenant-scoped keys or envelope encryption with per-tenant key separation, enforce strict IAM for key usage, log key usage and require approval for key exports, and perform periodic key policy audits. - **Controls Applied:** Per-tenant encryption keys, KMS IAM policies, Key usage auditing - **Control Effectiveness:** High - **Residual Risk Level:** Low - **Status:** ⚠️ Requires Review **THR-027** - Network / Project Isolation (Integration & Connectors) - **Category:** Elevation of Privilege - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** High - **Initial Risk Level:** High - **Description:** Incorrect network segmentation or misapplied firewall/SDN rules allow an attacker to move laterally from one tenant/project environment to another, escalating privileges or accessing other tenants' workloads. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Implement strict network microsegmentation, use tenant-dedicated VLANs or overlay networks, perform regular network config audits, use SDN controllers with RBAC and change management, and monitor east-west traffic for anomalies. - **Controls Applied:** Network microsegmentation, SDN RBAC, Network monitoring - **Control Effectiveness:** Medium - **Residual Risk Level:** Medium - **Status:** ⚠️ Requires Review ##### Medium Risk Threats **THR-001** - Edge Layer - **Category:** Spoofing - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** Medium - **Initial Risk Level:** Medium - **Description:** Attacker spoofs client IPs or request headers to bypass IP-based ACLs or geofencing at the edge, gaining access to APIs or bypassing rate limits. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Enforce TLS mutual authentication and client cert validation where applicable, use authenticated session tokens rather than IP ACLs, employ upstream source IP validation (proxy protocol), implement WAF rules to detect header/IP spoofing and anomaly detection for suspicious source patterns. - **Controls Applied:** WAF, mTLS, Proxy protocol / Source IP validation - **Control Effectiveness:** Medium - **Residual Risk Level:** Low - **Status:** ⚠️ Requires Review **THR-005** - Frontend Layer - **Category:** Tampering - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** Medium - **Initial Risk Level:** Medium - **Description:** Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) attacks cause authenticated users to perform unauthorized actions (e.g., create/destroy resources, change policies) via browser-based requests. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Implement CSRF tokens for state-changing endpoints, require SameSite cookies, use proper CORS policy with preflight checks, and avoid unsafe HTTP methods without protection. - **Controls Applied:** CSRF tokens, SameSite cookie - **Control Effectiveness:** High - **Residual Risk Level:** Low - **Status:** ⚠️ Requires Review **THR-016** - Integration & Connectors - **Category:** Information Disclosure - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** Medium - **Initial Risk Level:** Medium - **Description:** Misconfigured connectors or overly permissive API calls expose inventory, topology or sensitive configuration data from customer infrastructure to unauthorized parties. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Apply least privilege to connectors, limit scope of inventory calls, mask or redact sensitive attributes in stored inventories, and require encryption in transit and at rest for connector data. - **Controls Applied:** Least privilege, Data masking, TLS - **Control Effectiveness:** Medium - **Residual Risk Level:** Medium - **Status:** ⚠️ Requires Review **THR-020** - External Services (Email/SMS/Webhooks) - **Category:** Information Disclosure - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** Medium - **Initial Risk Level:** Medium - **Description:** Notification payloads (email/SMS/webhook) leak sensitive information or PII to third parties, or are sent to compromised endpoints causing data exfiltration. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Avoid including secrets/PII in notifications, use redaction, encrypt webhook payloads and sign them, validate webhook endpoints on registration, and implement escalation policies that avoid exposing sensitive details. - **Controls Applied:** Payload redaction, Signed webhooks, Endpoint validation - **Control Effectiveness:** Medium - **Residual Risk Level:** Medium - **Status:** ⚠️ Requires Review **THR-021** - External Services / Ticketing Integrations - **Category:** Tampering - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** Medium - **Initial Risk Level:** Medium - **Description:** Third-party ticketing integrations or webhooks are compromised or misconfigured and are used to inject malicious content, alter ticket states or gain privileged platform information. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Harden third-party integrations with signed and authenticated webhooks, enforce minimal data sharing with external ticketing, implement input sanitization for ticket content, and maintain strict access controls for integration credentials. - **Controls Applied:** Authenticated/signed webhooks, Least-privilege integrations - **Control Effectiveness:** Medium - **Residual Risk Level:** Medium - **Status:** ⚠️ Requires Review **THR-028** - Project Creation Requirement - **Category:** Tampering - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** Medium - **Initial Risk Level:** Medium - **Description:** Business-logic abuse or race conditions allow attackers to bypass quota/resource checks during project creation (e.g., rapid create requests or manipulated parameters), leading to resource exhaustion or unauthorized project creation. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Validate resource availability atomically, perform server-side checks and optimistic locking or transactions for quota enforcement, rate-limit project creation per user/tenant, and require approval workflows for large resource allocations. - **Controls Applied:** Atomic quota checks, Rate limiting, Approval workflows - **Control Effectiveness:** Medium - **Residual Risk Level:** Medium - **Status:** ⚠️ Requires Review **Risk Reduction Summary:** - **Critical Risk Reduction:** 3 threats reduced from Critical to lower levels - **High Risk Reduction:** 19 threats reduced from High to lower levels - **Residual Risk Distribution:** 1 threats remain at Critical/High level ### 5.3. Risk Summary The most critical threats are credential compromise and privilege abuse (THR-006, THR-007, THR-014), cross-tenant data leakage (THR-010), frontend token/secret theft via XSS (THR-003), infrastructure-level DDoS (THR-022), and tampering of provisioning/networking via connectors (THR-015). Overall the platform faces a high-risk posture if core controls are not implemented: authentication and RBAC weaknesses, multitenancy isolation flaws, secrets/KMS misconfigurations, and ingestion/observability abuse are the highest-impact vectors. Key attacker entry points include the edge/API gateway (DDoS, spoofing), authentication/SSO flows (credential theft, token forgery), integration connectors/service accounts (infrastructure compromise), and the frontend/browser (XSS, leaked tokens). Priority areas: 1) Enforce strong auth (MFA, short-lived tokens, OIDC best practices) and hardened RBAC/approval flows; 2) Protect and rotate secrets with enterprise KMS/HSM and vaults with per-tenant keying; 3) Harden the edge (DDoS protection, mTLS to internal services) and implement robust WAF rules; 4) Ensure multitenant isolation through server-side tenant checks and per-tenant data separation; 5) Protect observability pipelines (scrubbing, rate-limiting, model robustness) and ensure immutable audit logging. Implementing these prioritized controls will materially reduce critical risk and make remaining threats manageable through monitoring, incident response, and continuous testing. --- ## 6. Multi-Standard Security Requirements Mapping This section maps each functional requirement to specific security controls from multiple industry standards: OWASP Application Security Verification Standard (ASVS), NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5, and ISO 27001:2022. This multi-standard approach provides comprehensive coverage across application-level, enterprise-level, and organizational-level security domains: - **OWASP ASVS**: Application-level security controls (code, APIs, authentication, session management) - **NIST SP 800-53**: Enterprise security controls (governance, risk management, incident response) - **ISO 27001**: Information security management controls (policies, procedures, organizational controls) Requirements are prioritized based on risk assessment and compliance needs, with controls selected from the most appropriate standard(s) for each requirement type. ### 6.1. Recommended ASVS Compliance Level **Recommended Level:** L2 **Level 2: Standard** Recommended for most production applications. Provides comprehensive security coverage suitable for applications handling sensitive data or operating in regulated environments. Includes controls for authentication, authorization, data protection, and secure communications. The recommendation considers factors such as: - Data sensitivity and classification levels - Regulatory and compliance requirements (GDPR, HIPAA, PCI-DSS, etc.) - Threat landscape and risk assessment from threat modeling - Business criticality and potential impact of security incidents All security controls referenced in this document align with this recommended compliance level. ### 6.2. Requirements Mapping This section maps each high-level requirement to specific security controls from multiple standards (OWASP ASVS, NIST SP 800-53, ISO 27001) with detailed descriptions, relevance explanations, and integration guidance. Controls are grouped by standard for clarity. #### 6.2.1. REQ-001: User registration and login with role-based access control and session management ##### OWASP ASVS Controls **V4 - Authentication Verification Requirements** **Requirement:** Verify that passwords are stored using a strong adaptive hashing function (e.g., bcrypt, scrypt, Argon2) with a per-password salt and appropriate work factor. **Relevance:** This control ensures user credentials used during registration and login are stored securely, reducing risk of credential compromise and unauthorized access. It directly applies to authentication mechanisms used in user registration and login. **Integration Tips:** Use a vetted library implementing Argon2/bcrypt with per-user salts and configured work factor based on current recommendations. Ensure password hashing is done server-side during registration and password changes, and never log raw passwords. **Verification Method:** Review code or configuration showing adaptive hashing use; verify salts and work factor values; perform static analysis and inspect password storage in a test database. **Level:** L1 | **Priority:** Critical **V2 - Session Management Verification Requirements** **Requirement:** Verify that sessions are expired after a sensible period of inactivity and absolute maximum session lifetime. **Relevance:** Directly addresses session management by requiring session expiration policies to mitigate hijacking and unauthorized long-lived sessions for authenticated users. **Integration Tips:** Configure application and token lifetimes (access/refresh tokens), enforce inactivity timeouts, and implement absolute session lifetime regardless of activity. Ensure session cookies have secure attributes. **Verification Method:** Inspect session configuration, perform tests to confirm timeout behavior, and review token lifetimes and cookie flags in headers. **Level:** L1 | **Priority:** Critical ##### NIST SP 800-53 Controls **IA-2** **Requirement:** The information system uniquely identifies and authenticates organizational users (or processes acting on behalf of organizational users). **Relevance:** Establishes requirement to uniquely identify users and authenticate them during login, which is foundational for registration and role assignment. It supports enforcement of role-based access control by tying identities to roles. **Integration Tips:** Implement unique user identifiers, integrate with identity providers if needed (SAML/OIDC), and ensure authentication flows (password, MFA) map to unique accounts for RBAC assignments. **Verification Method:** Test authentication flows to confirm unique IDs are enforced; review identity store for uniqueness; inspect authentication logs for correct mapping of identities. **Priority:** Critical **AC-2** **Requirement:** The information system manages information system accounts, including establishing, activating, modifying, disabling, and removing accounts. **Relevance:** Directly relates to user registration/de-registration and lifecycle of accounts required for role-based access and session management. Ensures processes exist for account state changes. **Integration Tips:** Implement automated account lifecycle workflows (provision/deprovision), administrative UI for activating/disabling accounts, and tie account state to session termination. **Verification Method:** Review account management procedures, test account creation/modification/deactivation flows, and verify sessions are invalidated on deactivation. **Priority:** High ##### ISO 27001:2022 Controls **A.9.2** **Requirement:** A formal user registration and de-registration process should be implemented to enable assignment of access rights. **Relevance:** Mandates formal registration and de-registration processes which underpin secure onboarding/offboarding, role assignment, and access control enforcement for user login flows. **Integration Tips:** Define documented processes and approvals for user registration/deregistration, automate workflows where possible, and integrate with RBAC role assignment during onboarding. **Verification Method:** Audit registration/de-registration records, review workflow documentation, and sample test user onboarding/offboarding for compliance. **Priority:** High #### 6.2.2. REQ-002: Platform administrator registration and privileged admin workflows ##### OWASP ASVS Controls **V5 - Access Control Verification Requirements** **Requirement:** Verify that access control checks are performed on the server side for all functionality that requires it and that they enforce principle of least privilege. **Relevance:** Requires server-side enforcement of admin privileges and prevention of client-side bypasses, which is essential for secure privileged workflows. **Integration Tips:** Implement centralized server-side authorization checks for admin APIs, perform role validation on each request, and include test coverage for access control enforcement. **Verification Method:** Review server-side authorization code, perform access control testing (role-based tests), and use automated tests to confirm enforcement. **Level:** L2 | **Priority:** Critical ##### NIST SP 800-53 Controls **AC-6** **Requirement:** The information system enforces the most restrictive set of rights/privileges or accesses needed by users (and processes) to perform their assigned functions. **Relevance:** Privileged admin workflows require least privilege to limit blast radius; this control mandates minimal privileges for administrators and helps prevent privilege misuse. **Integration Tips:** Implement role definitions with minimal permissions, use just-in-time elevation for privileged tasks, separate admin accounts from regular accounts, and log all privileged actions. **Verification Method:** Review role definitions, test that admin accounts cannot perform non-authorized actions, and inspect privilege escalation controls and logs. **Priority:** Critical **AU-2** **Requirement:** The information system determines and documents the types of events that the system will audit, which should include privileged user actions. **Relevance:** Privileged admin workflows must be auditable; this control ensures privileged actions are logged for accountability and investigations. **Integration Tips:** Configure audit logging to capture admin actions, include before/after state where possible, and ship logs to centralized secure storage with appropriate retention. **Verification Method:** Inspect audit configuration, review samples of privileged action logs, and confirm logs include user, timestamp, action, and target. **Priority:** High ##### ISO 27001:2022 Controls **A.9.4** **Requirement:** Access to systems and applications should be restricted based on the access control policy. **Relevance:** Ensures that administrator access to platform components is restricted and controlled per policy; supports administrative workflow protections. **Integration Tips:** Apply RBAC/ABAC controls for admin interfaces, enforce MFA for admin login, and segregate duties across admin roles to reduce risk. **Verification Method:** Review access control policy, test administrative access restrictions, and verify MFA enforcement for admin accounts. **Priority:** Critical #### 6.2.3. REQ-003: Multi-project membership support with per-user, per-project role assignments ##### OWASP ASVS Controls **V5 - Access Control Verification Requirements** **Requirement:** Verify that role-based access control is implemented correctly and that role membership and permissions are managed securely. **Relevance:** Directly addresses RBAC implementation and management, which is central to per-user per-project role assignments and membership support. **Integration Tips:** Implement role management UI with audit trails, validate role assignment boundaries per project, and enforce RBAC checks at resource access points. **Verification Method:** Review role assignment workflows, inspect role permission data, and perform tests to ensure proper enforcement and isolation between projects. **Level:** L2 | **Priority:** Critical ##### NIST SP 800-53 Controls **AC-3** **Requirement:** The information system enforces approved authorizations for logical access to information and system resources in accordance with applicable access control policies. **Relevance:** Supports enforcement of per-user, per-project role assignments by mandating enforcement of approved access authorizations tied to resources (projects). **Integration Tips:** Design authorization model that evaluates user, project context, and role; enforce checks centrally in APIs; maintain policy store per project for decisions. **Verification Method:** Test access enforcement across project boundaries, review policy decision points, and validate denied/allowed scenarios for different roles. **Priority:** Critical ##### ISO 27001:2022 Controls **A.9.1** **Requirement:** Access control policy should be established, documented and reviewed based on business and information security requirements. **Relevance:** A formal access control policy is needed to define per-project and per-user role behaviors and membership rules across projects. **Integration Tips:** Document project membership rules and role matrices, map business processes to RBAC policies, and review policy regularly with stakeholders. **Verification Method:** Review access control policy documents and role matrices, check alignment with implemented access controls, and perform periodic reviews. **Priority:** High #### 6.2.4. REQ-004: Per-user, per-project policy customization and policy inheritance ##### OWASP ASVS Controls **V5 - Access Control Verification Requirements** **Requirement:** Verify that authorization mechanisms are designed to permit flexible policies and support policy updates without introducing insecure defaults. **Relevance:** Ensures the authorization system supports flexible, per-project policy customization and safe inheritance behavior without insecure fallback permissions. **Integration Tips:** Design policy engine to support hierarchical policies and overrides, implement secure defaults (deny-by-default), and provide clear precedence rules for inheritance. **Verification Method:** Review authorization engine design, test policy override and inheritance cases, and verify default-deny behavior in absence of explicit permissions. **Level:** L2 | **Priority:** High ##### NIST SP 800-53 Controls **AC-5** **Requirement:** The organization separates duties of individuals to reduce the risk of malevolent activity without collusion. **Relevance:** While focused on separation, AC-5 supports policy customization by enforcing controls on who can create or inherit policies within a project, enabling appropriate governance and oversight. **Integration Tips:** Implement administrative roles for policy creation and separate them from operational roles; enforce approvals for policy overrides and document inheritance rules. **Verification Method:** Review role definitions for policy management, audit policy change events, and test separation of duties controls in policy administration. **Priority:** High ##### ISO 27001:2022 Controls **A.9.2** **Requirement:** A formal user registration and de-registration process should be implemented to enable assignment of access rights. **Relevance:** Supports controlled assignment of per-project policies and inheritance by ensuring user access is provisioned correctly before policies apply. **Integration Tips:** Ensure policy customization interfaces tie into user registration workflows and inheritance logic, and restrict who can assign policies. **Verification Method:** Review policy assignment logs and test that inherited policies apply correctly when users are added or removed. **Priority:** Medium #### 6.2.5. REQ-005: Project creation workflow with quota and resource availability checks ##### OWASP ASVS Controls **V7 - Business Logic Verification Requirements** **Requirement:** Verify that the application enforces resource limits and quotas to prevent abuse and resource exhaustion. **Relevance:** Directly enforces quota checks during project creation to avoid resource exhaustion and ensure fair use across projects. **Integration Tips:** Implement server-side quota validation during project creation, prevent race conditions on quota allocation, and queue or reject requests that exceed available resources. **Verification Method:** Attempt project creation requests that exceed quotas, inspect enforcement logic, and review handling of concurrent provisioning attempts. **Level:** L2 | **Priority:** High ##### NIST SP 800-53 Controls **PL-2** **Requirement:** Develop, document, and disseminate system and communications protection policy and procedures. **Relevance:** Project creation workflows should be governed by documented policies and procedures that include quota and resource checks as part of provisioning governance. **Integration Tips:** Embed quota checks into the project provisioning procedure, document allowed resource limits, and automate enforcement and exception handling per policy. **Verification Method:** Review documented procedures, inspect automation enforcing quota checks, and perform provision-request tests that exceed quotas to confirm denial. **Priority:** Medium ##### ISO 27001:2022 Controls **A.8.1** **Requirement:** Assets associated with information and information processing facilities should be identified and an inventory of these assets maintained. **Relevance:** Resource availability and quotas depend on understanding and inventorying assets (compute, storage) to make informed allocation decisions during project creation. **Integration Tips:** Maintain an up-to-date resource inventory and integrate it with project creation checks to validate availability and update quotas upon provisioning. **Verification Method:** Inspect asset inventory, test project creation flows against inventory data, and review quota update transactions. **Priority:** High #### 6.2.6. REQ-006: Resource provisioning and lifecycle management (deploy/destroy VNFs, CNFs, apps, networks) ##### OWASP ASVS Controls **V7 - Business Logic Verification Requirements** **Requirement:** Verify that state transitions and business transactions are handled correctly to prevent logic flaws, race conditions, and inconsistencies during operations. **Relevance:** Ensures provisioning and destroy operations handle state changes reliably without race conditions (e.g., double-deploy, orphaned resources). **Integration Tips:** Use transactional provisioning steps or orchestration that supports rollback on failure, implement idempotent APIs, and include consistency checks post-deployment. **Verification Method:** Conduct concurrency and failure-injection tests on provisioning APIs and review orchestration logs for proper rollback and state transitions. **Level:** L2 | **Priority:** Critical ##### NIST SP 800-53 Controls **CM-2** **Requirement:** Develop, document, and maintain under configuration control, a current baseline configuration of the information system. **Relevance:** Provisioning and lifecycle management require baseline configurations for VNFs/CNFs/apps to ensure consistent secure deployments and controlled changes when creating/destroying resources. **Integration Tips:** Define secure baseline images and configuration templates for VNFs/CNFs, store them in version-controlled repositories, and enforce their use in provisioning pipelines. **Verification Method:** Review baseline configuration documents, inspect deployed instances for compliance, and perform configuration drift scans. **Priority:** Critical ##### ISO 27001:2022 Controls **A.12.1** **Requirement:** Operating procedures should be documented, maintained and made available to all users who need them. **Relevance:** Lifecycle operations (deploy/destroy) need documented procedures to ensure secure, repeatable provisioning and decommissioning of resources. **Integration Tips:** Document provisioning and decommissioning workflows, include steps for secure data sanitization upon destroy, and integrate with automation for consistency. **Verification Method:** Review operational procedures, observe provisioning/decommissioning runs, and verify data sanitization after resource destruction. **Priority:** High #### 6.2.7. REQ-007: Project credential management and granular access rules (secrets/keys) ##### OWASP ASVS Controls **V6 - Sensitive Data Protection Verification Requirements** **Requirement:** Verify that application secrets and credentials are stored securely using an approved secret management mechanism and never hard-coded or stored in source code. **Relevance:** Directly covers secure handling of project secrets/keys and prevents common mistakes like embedding secrets in code or configs. **Integration Tips:** Integrate a secrets manager for project credentials, ensure applications retrieve credentials at runtime with short-lived tokens, and scan repositories for accidental secrets. **Verification Method:** Perform secret scanning in code repositories, inspect runtime retrieval from secret manager, and verify no credentials are in source. **Level:** L2 | **Priority:** Critical ##### NIST SP 800-53 Controls **IA-5** **Requirement:** The organization manages information system authenticators (e.g., passwords, tokens, asymmetric keys) by establishing, implementing, and maintaining controls for their lifecycle. **Relevance:** Directly applies to management of project credentials (secrets, keys) by enforcing lifecycle controls and secure handling practices. **Integration Tips:** Use dedicated secrets management solutions (KMS/HashiCorp Vault), automate rotation and revocation, and manage access through IAM policies tied to project roles. **Verification Method:** Inspect secret storage configuration, verify rotation schedules, and test revocation and access controls for secrets. **Priority:** Critical ##### ISO 27001:2022 Controls **A.10.1** **Requirement:** A policy on the use of cryptographic controls for protection of information should be developed and implemented. **Relevance:** Requires cryptographic protection for secrets and keys used in projects and mandates a policy for their use, aligning with granular access rules. **Integration Tips:** Define cryptographic policy for key strength, storage, and usage; ensure secrets are encrypted at rest and in transit and keys are stored in hardware-backed modules where possible. **Verification Method:** Review cryptographic policy, inspect encryption configurations, and validate key management practices (HSM/KMS use). **Priority:** Critical #### 6.2.8. REQ-008: Project isolation (multi-tenancy) at compute, network, storage and data planes ##### OWASP ASVS Controls **V5 - Access Control Verification Requirements** **Requirement:** Verify that multi-tenant applications enforce strict logical separation between tenants in all layers (UI, business logic, storage, caching) and do not allow data leakage. **Relevance:** Specifically addresses multi-tenancy concerns and ensures logical separation across application layers to enforce project isolation. **Integration Tips:** Design tenant-aware data models, include tenant ID checks on all data access paths, and segregate caches/sessions per tenant to avoid cross-tenant data exposure. **Verification Method:** Perform targeted tests for tenant isolation, inspect data access paths for tenant ID enforcement, and review caching/session partitioning. **Level:** L3 | **Priority:** Critical ##### NIST SP 800-53 Controls **SC-2** **Requirement:** The system partitions user functionality and data to separate users and prevent unauthorized access across partitions. **Relevance:** Directly targets multi-tenancy isolation by mandating partitioning of functions and data to prevent cross-project access across compute, network, storage and data planes. **Integration Tips:** Implement tenant/namespace isolation at orchestration layer, use network segmentation (VLANs/VRFs), and separate storage volumes per project with access controls. **Verification Method:** Penetration tests for cross-tenant access, review segmentation rules, and verify that storage and compute isolation controls are enforced. **Priority:** Critical ##### ISO 27001:2022 Controls **A.13.1** **Requirement:** Networks should be managed and controlled to protect information in systems and applications. **Relevance:** Requires network management and controls that support tenant isolation, reducing risk of data leakage across projects. **Integration Tips:** Use network policies, microsegmentation, and enforce tenant firewalls; apply monitoring for inter-tenant traffic and restrict administrative network access. **Verification Method:** Review network configurations and policies, test for lateral movement between tenant segments, and monitor logs for cross-tenant flows. **Priority:** Critical #### 6.2.9. REQ-009: Integrated monitoring and analytics for cloud, network, infra and applications ##### OWASP ASVS Controls **V10 - Logging and Monitoring Verification Requirements** **Requirement:** Verify that the application produces sufficient logging and that logs are aggregated to a central trusted location for analysis and alerting. **Relevance:** Directly supports integrated monitoring/analytics by requiring sufficient application logs and central aggregation for analysis across domains. **Integration Tips:** Instrument applications and infrastructure with structured logs, forward logs to a secure central platform with access controls, and ensure time synchronization for correlation. **Verification Method:** Review logging instrumentation, confirm central aggregation and secure transport, and test correlation across multiple data sources. **Level:** L2 | **Priority:** High ##### NIST SP 800-53 Controls **AU-6** **Requirement:** The organization reviews and analyzes information system audit records and reports findings to designated personnel. **Relevance:** Supports integrated monitoring and analytics by mandating review and analysis of audit records from cloud, network, infra, and applications to detect anomalies. **Integration Tips:** Aggregate logs centrally (SIEM/analytics platform), configure alerts for anomalies, and implement dashboards for cross-domain visibility. **Verification Method:** Verify log aggregation, review analytics rules, and check incident reports generated from monitoring outputs. **Priority:** High ##### ISO 27001:2022 Controls **A.12.4** **Requirement:** Event logs recording user activities, exceptions and information security events should be produced, kept and regularly reviewed. **Relevance:** Mandates logging and monitoring across systems which is foundational to integrated monitoring and analytics for varied domains (cloud, network, infra). **Integration Tips:** Implement centralized logging, ensure critical services emit structured logs, and schedule periodic reviews and automated analytics to detect issues. **Verification Method:** Inspect logging configuration, check retention and log review procedures, and review alerts/dashboards produced by analytics. **Priority:** High #### 6.2.10. REQ-010: AI-assisted fault detection and automated alerting/notification ##### OWASP ASVS Controls **V10 - Logging and Monitoring Verification Requirements** **Requirement:** Verify that the application integrates with alerting and incident response systems so that detected issues generate actionable alerts to responsible parties. **Relevance:** Directly ensures AI-detected faults produce actionable alerts and integrate with incident management systems for notification and response. **Integration Tips:** Integrate AI alerts with ticketing and incident systems (webhooks/alerts), include context in alerts (runbooks), and implement rate-limiting and deduplication to avoid alert fatigue. **Verification Method:** Trigger synthetic faults to validate alert generation and workflow integration, and review alert contents for sufficient context. **Level:** L2 | **Priority:** High ##### NIST SP 800-53 Controls **SI-4** **Requirement:** The organization monitors the information system to detect attacks and indicators of potential attacks or other security incidents. **Relevance:** Monitoring for faults and anomalies using AI aligns with SI-4's requirement to monitor systems and detect potential incidents, enabling automated alerting. **Integration Tips:** Feed telemetry and logs into ML/AI models within a monitored platform, tune detection thresholds, and implement secure pipelines for model inputs to avoid poisoning. **Verification Method:** Validate monitoring coverage, review detection model performance metrics, and test alerting workflows triggered by AI-detected events. **Priority:** High ##### ISO 27001:2022 Controls **A.12.4** **Requirement:** Event logs recording user activities, exceptions and information security events should be produced, kept and regularly reviewed. **Relevance:** Provides foundation for feeding data into AI detection systems and ensuring events are logged and reviewed, enabling credible automated alerting. **Integration Tips:** Ensure high-quality telemetry collection and retention for training and real-time inference; implement controls for model validation and human-in-the-loop escalation. **Verification Method:** Review data ingestion pipelines, validate event types fed into AI models, and inspect alerting logs and escalations. **Priority:** Medium #### 6.2.11. REQ-011: Capacity monitoring and automated capacity warning system ##### OWASP ASVS Controls **V10 - Logging and Monitoring Verification Requirements** **Requirement:** Verify that the application exposes necessary metrics and integrates with monitoring systems to provide alerts on thresholds and anomalous conditions. **Relevance:** Requires exposure of metrics and integration with monitoring systems for capacity alerting and automated warnings. **Integration Tips:** Instrument services with resource usage metrics, export to monitoring systems (Prometheus, CloudWatch), and configure thresholds/alerting rules for capacity events. **Verification Method:** Check metric endpoints and exported metrics, validate alert rules trigger under simulated load, and review alert history. **Level:** L2 | **Priority:** High ##### NIST SP 800-53 Controls **CM-8** **Requirement:** The organization develops and maintains an inventory of information system components that accurately reflects the current information system. **Relevance:** Accurate component inventory supports capacity monitoring by providing authoritative data on resources to measure capacity and forecast usage. **Integration Tips:** Automate inventory collection from orchestration and cloud APIs, integrate with capacity analytics to produce warnings, and update inventory on provisioning/decommissioning. **Verification Method:** Compare inventory against actual resources, test integration between inventory and capacity monitoring, and review generated warnings for accuracy. **Priority:** Medium ##### ISO 27001:2022 Controls **A.12.1** **Requirement:** Operating procedures should be documented, maintained and made available to all users who need them. **Relevance:** Operational procedures should include capacity monitoring responsibilities and automated warning processes to ensure continuity of services. **Integration Tips:** Document capacity thresholds and escalation paths, automate capacity checks and notifications, and assign responsibilities for capacity planning. **Verification Method:** Review procedures and threshold definitions, test automated warnings by simulating high utilization, and review escalation logs. **Priority:** Medium #### 6.2.12. REQ-012: Health and security scanning (vulnerability, misconfiguration, integrity checks) ##### OWASP ASVS Controls **V6 - Sensitive Data Protection Verification Requirements** **Requirement:** Verify that integrity checks are implemented for critical components and that tamper detection mechanisms exist where appropriate. **Relevance:** Ensures integrity checks and tamper detection are present for critical components, complementing vulnerability and misconfiguration scanning. **Integration Tips:** Implement file/system integrity monitoring, sign or hash critical artifacts, and integrate integrity alerts into security monitoring. **Verification Method:** Review integrity monitoring configuration, test tamper detection by modifying controlled files, and verify alerts are generated. **Level:** L2 | **Priority:** High ##### NIST SP 800-53 Controls **RA-5** **Requirement:** The organization scans for vulnerabilities in the information system and hosted applications, and remediates discovered vulnerabilities in accordance with organizational policies and procedures. **Relevance:** Directly addresses vulnerability scanning and remediation across infrastructure, applications, and services to maintain health and security posture. **Integration Tips:** Implement regular automated vulnerability scans, prioritize findings by severity, and integrate results into ticketing for tracked remediation. **Verification Method:** Review scan schedules and reports, validate remediation tickets and patch timelines, and verify re-scans show resolved findings. **Priority:** Critical ##### ISO 27001:2022 Controls **A.12.6** **Requirement:** Information about technical vulnerabilities of information systems being used should be obtained in a timely fashion, the organization's exposure evaluated, and appropriate measures taken to address the associated risk. **Relevance:** Mandates organization's vulnerability management process covering identification, evaluation and treatment of vulnerabilities, applicable to health/security scanning. **Integration Tips:** Subscribe to vulnerability feeds, run scheduled scans and integrity checks, and maintain remediation workflows aligned with risk assessment. **Verification Method:** Inspect vulnerability management process, scan results, and evidence of remediation and risk acceptance where applicable. **Priority:** High #### 6.2.13. REQ-013: Notification delivery and role/policy-based notification rules and dashboards ##### OWASP ASVS Controls **V10 - Logging and Monitoring Verification Requirements** **Requirement:** Verify that the application integrates with alerting and incident response systems so that detected issues generate actionable alerts to responsible parties. **Relevance:** Ensures notifications are actionable and routed to responsible roles/policies, supporting dashboards and incident workflows. **Integration Tips:** Integrate notification system with identity and role directory to resolve recipients, include context in notifications, and implement role-based suppression/aggregation. **Verification Method:** Test role-based alert routing, validate alerts contain context and links to dashboards, and review incident handling steps. **Level:** L2 | **Priority:** High ##### NIST SP 800-53 Controls **IR-6** **Requirement:** The organization requires personnel to report suspected incidents to designated personnel or authorities. **Relevance:** Supports organized reporting and delivery of notifications to designated roles; ensures incidents are escalated as per policy and role assignments. **Integration Tips:** Define notification recipients per incident severity, integrate automated alerts into reporting workflows, and ensure SLAs and escalation paths are documented. **Verification Method:** Review incident reporting workflows, test simulated incidents to verify notifications and escalations, and inspect logs of incident reports. **Priority:** High ##### ISO 27001:2022 Controls **A.7.2** **Requirement:** Employees should be aware of and fulfill their information security responsibilities. **Relevance:** Role-based notifications and dashboards rely on clear responsibilities and ensuring users receive relevant security and operational notifications per role. **Integration Tips:** Map notification rules to role responsibilities, ensure opt-in/opt-out are governed by policy, and provide role-specific dashboards with appropriate access controls. **Verification Method:** Review role mappings and notification rules, test delivery to role-based recipients, and audit dashboard access controls. **Priority:** Medium #### 6.2.14. REQ-014: Ticketing system for project-to-platform and internal support workflows ##### NIST SP 800-53 Controls **MP-6** **Requirement:** The organization sanitizes or destroys information system media containing Federal information before disposal or reuse. **Relevance:** Tickets may contain sensitive data; processes must ensure that attachments or exported ticket data are sanitized or handled securely to prevent data leakage. **Integration Tips:** Implement ticket redaction policies, restrict attachments that contain secrets, and enforce retention and sanitization for exported ticket data. **Verification Method:** Inspect ticket data handling policies, review samples for redaction, and verify sanitization of ticket exports. **Priority:** Medium **AU-6** **Requirement:** The organization reviews and analyzes information system audit records and reports findings to designated personnel. **Relevance:** Ticketing systems should integrate with audit/reporting to enable support workflows to be reviewed and audited for compliance and security incidents. **Integration Tips:** Log ticket actions (access, updates) to audit systems, correlate tickets with incident logs, and provide dashboards for auditors and managers. **Verification Method:** Review audit logs from ticketing system, test correlation between tickets and incident logs, and verify audit reports are produced. **Priority:** Medium ##### ISO 27001:2022 Controls **A.12.1** **Requirement:** Operating procedures should be documented, maintained and made available to all users who need them. **Relevance:** Ticketing workflows are operational procedures that must be documented to ensure consistent support response and secure handling of requests between projects and platform teams. **Integration Tips:** Document ticketing processes including access controls, data handling in tickets (sensitive info redaction), and escalation rules; integrate ticketing with RBAC for visibility. **Verification Method:** Review documented ticketing procedures, sample tickets for policy adherence, and test access restrictions on ticket contents. **Priority:** Medium #### 6.2.15. REQ-015: Platform-wide dashboards for admins with full visibility and audit trails ##### OWASP ASVS Controls **V10 - Logging and Monitoring Verification Requirements** **Requirement:** Verify that the application produces sufficient logging and that logs are aggregated to a central trusted location for analysis and alerting. **Relevance:** Supports centralized data for admin dashboards and audit trails enabling cross-system visibility and analysis. **Integration Tips:** Ensure logs are structured and tagged with metadata (project, user, role), provide secure APIs for dashboards to query logs, and implement access logging for dashboard views. **Verification Method:** Validate central aggregation, metadata tagging, and test dashboards for comprehensive visibility and correct filtering. **Level:** L2 | **Priority:** High ##### NIST SP 800-53 Controls **AU-2** **Requirement:** The information system determines and documents the types of events that the system will audit, which should include privileged user actions. **Relevance:** Dashboards for admins require underlying audit events and trails to present full visibility; capturing privileged actions is specifically required. **Integration Tips:** Ensure all privileged operations emit structured audit events, create secure dashboards with role-based access, and allow drill-down to raw logs for investigations. **Verification Method:** Review audit event catalog, verify dashboard inclusion of privileged events, and test role-based access to dashboards. **Priority:** High ##### ISO 27001:2022 Controls **A.12.4** **Requirement:** Event logs recording user activities, exceptions and information security events should be produced, kept and regularly reviewed. **Relevance:** Establishes requirement for logs and reviews that feed admin dashboards and audit trails across the platform. **Integration Tips:** Implement centralized logging pipeline, secure dashboards with MFA and RBAC, and ensure logs are tamper-evident and retained according to policy. **Verification Method:** Inspect logs feeding dashboards, test access controls on dashboards, and review retention/tamper-evidence controls. **Priority:** High #### 6.2.16. REQ-016: Audit logging and retention for actions, configuration changes and access ##### OWASP ASVS Controls **V10 - Logging and Monitoring Verification Requirements** **Requirement:** Verify that logs are protected from tampering, including secure transmission, storage, and access controls to prevent unauthorized modification. **Relevance:** Ensures integrity and protection of audit logs for reliable investigation of actions, configuration changes, and access. **Integration Tips:** Use append-only storage or WORM, employ cryptographic signing of logs, secure transport (TLS) to log collectors, and limit access via RBAC. **Verification Method:** Inspect log signing and immutability controls, attempt authorized/unauthorized modifications in test environments, and review access logs for log stores. **Level:** L2 | **Priority:** Critical ##### NIST SP 800-53 Controls **AU-11** **Requirement:** The organization retains audit records for a defined time period to provide support for after-the-fact investigations of security incidents and to meet regulatory requirements. **Relevance:** Directly addresses audit log retention requirements ensuring logs of actions, configuration changes, and access are kept for investigations and compliance. **Integration Tips:** Define retention periods per log type and regulatory needs, implement immutable storage for logs, and secure log access controls and archival processes. **Verification Method:** Review retention policies, inspect storage configurations for immutability, and verify retention via sample logs spanning required periods. **Priority:** Critical ##### ISO 27001:2022 Controls **A.12.4** **Requirement:** Event logs recording user activities, exceptions and information security events should be produced, kept and regularly reviewed. **Relevance:** Mandates creation and review of logs; combined with AU-11 this ensures logs are retained and reviewed appropriately for actions/config changes/access. **Integration Tips:** Implement centralized log storage with access controls, schedule regular log reviews, and document retention and purge procedures aligning with compliance requirements. **Verification Method:** Inspect log retention configuration, review periodic log review records, and verify deletion/purge processes respect retention policy. **Priority:** High #### 6.2.17. REQ-017: Policy-driven automated remediation actions (optional/controlled) ##### OWASP ASVS Controls **V7 - Business Logic Verification Requirements** **Requirement:** Verify that automated business logic actions include safeguards to prevent unintended consequences and provide auditability and manual override where appropriate. **Relevance:** Specifically targets safety and auditability of automated remediation actions, ensuring safeguards and overrides are implemented to prevent incorrect automated changes. **Integration Tips:** Implement policy engine with simulated dry-run mode, require approvals for high-risk automations, and maintain audit trails and rollback mechanisms for automated changes. **Verification Method:** Review safeguards in automation workflows, perform dry-run tests, and verify audit records and manual override controls function as intended. **Level:** L3 | **Priority:** High ##### NIST SP 800-53 Controls **IR-4** **Requirement:** The organization implements incident handling capability for detected incidents including containment, eradication, and recovery actions. **Relevance:** Automated remediation must align with incident handling processes to ensure containment and recovery are conducted safely and under control. **Integration Tips:** Define safe, policy-driven automated remediation playbooks, require human approval for high-impact actions, and log all automated remediation steps for review. **Verification Method:** Test automated remediation in controlled environment, review playbook definitions, and verify logging of actions and rollbacks. **Priority:** High ##### ISO 27001:2022 Controls **A.16.1** **Requirement:** Responsibilities and procedures for incident management should be established to ensure a quick, effective and orderly response to information security incidents. **Relevance:** Automated remediation must be governed by incident management procedures to ensure actions are appropriate, auditable, and can be overridden if needed. **Integration Tips:** Integrate automated remediation into incident procedures with defined thresholds and approval gates, maintain runbooks and escalation paths, and implement rollback capability. **Verification Method:** Review incident management integration, test automated responses with simulated incidents, and confirm logging and manual override capabilities. **Priority:** High #### 6.2.18. REQ-018: API and CLI for automation and integration with external systems ##### OWASP ASVS Controls **V8 - API Security Verification Requirements** **Requirement:** Verify that APIs implement strong authentication and authorization checks for every request and enforce least privilege. **Relevance:** Directly applies to API/CLI security by mandating per-request authN/authZ and least privilege enforcement to prevent unauthorized automation access. **Integration Tips:** Implement token-based auth (OAuth2 with scopes), ensure tokens are scoped to least privilege, and validate authorization per API call with context (project, user, role). **Verification Method:** Perform API testing for authentication/authorization bypasses, review token scopes and issuance policies, and check logs for unauthorized attempts. **Level:** L2 | **Priority:** Critical ##### NIST SP 800-53 Controls **SC-7** **Requirement:** The information system monitors and controls communications at the external boundary and key internal boundaries to ensure protection of organizational systems. **Relevance:** APIs and CLIs expose interfaces across boundaries; SC-7 mandates control and monitoring of these communications to secure integrations with external systems. **Integration Tips:** Restrict API/CLI access via network controls, use mutual TLS for external integrations, and monitor API endpoints for anomalous activity. **Verification Method:** Review network controls for API endpoints, test mutual authentication, and inspect monitoring/alerts for API traffic. **Priority:** High ##### ISO 27001:2022 Controls **A.13.2** **Requirement:** Policies and procedures should be established to protect information transferred within the organization and with external parties. **Relevance:** APIs/CLIs enable information transfer; policies ensure data exchanged with external systems is protected and compliant. **Integration Tips:** Define data handling and transfer policies, enforce encryption in transit (TLS), and require contractual protections for external integrations. **Verification Method:** Review information transfer policies, inspect TLS configurations, and audit external integration agreements. **Priority:** High #### 6.2.19. REQ-019: Secure storage and handling of sensitive data (secrets, credentials, telemetry) ##### OWASP ASVS Controls **V6 - Sensitive Data Protection Verification Requirements** **Requirement:** Verify that sensitive data is protected in transit and at rest using appropriate cryptography and that keys are managed securely. **Relevance:** Directly requires encryption of sensitive secrets/credentials and telemetry and proper key management for secure handling. **Integration Tips:** Use TLS for telemetry ingestion, encrypt storage volumes or use encrypted object stores for secrets, and use centralized KMS with rotation policies. **Verification Method:** Review encryption usage in configs, inspect TLS certificates and key stores, and verify key rotation and access controls. **Level:** L2 | **Priority:** Critical ##### NIST SP 800-53 Controls **SC-13** **Requirement:** The information system implements cryptographic mechanisms to prevent unauthorized disclosure and modification of information. **Relevance:** Mandates cryptographic protections for sensitive data such as secrets and telemetry to ensure confidentiality and integrity in storage and transit. **Integration Tips:** Encrypt sensitive data at rest and in transit using strong algorithms and key management, segregate telemetry data access, and restrict key access via IAM. **Verification Method:** Inspect encryption configurations, verify key management practices, and perform tests to attempt unauthorized data access. **Priority:** Critical ##### ISO 27001:2022 Controls **A.10.1** **Requirement:** A policy on the use of cryptographic controls for protection of information should be developed and implemented. **Relevance:** Requires policies guiding cryptographic use for storing and handling sensitive data like secrets and telemetry, ensuring consistent implementation. **Integration Tips:** Develop cryptography policy covering algorithms, key sizes, lifecycle, and approved KMS implementations; ensure adherence across systems. **Verification Method:** Review cryptography policy, inspect implementation across data stores, and validate key management. **Priority:** High #### 6.2.20. REQ-020: Compliance and reporting features (data residency, access reports, exportable logs) ##### OWASP ASVS Controls **V10 - Logging and Monitoring Verification Requirements** **Requirement:** Verify that logs can be exported securely and that access to exported logs is controlled and auditable. **Relevance:** Ensures logs and access reports are exportable in a secure, auditable manner supporting compliance needs like data residency and reporting. **Integration Tips:** Provide secure export endpoints with RBAC, encrypt exported log packages, and include metadata for residency and access controls in exports. **Verification Method:** Test secure export process, verify export contains required metadata, and review access logs for export actions. **Level:** L2 | **Priority:** High ##### NIST SP 800-53 Controls **AU-8** **Requirement:** The system uses internal system clocks to generate time stamps for audit records and synchronize system clocks to an authoritative time source. **Relevance:** Accurate time-stamped logs are essential for compliance reporting and exportable logs to ensure event ordering and forensic value. **Integration Tips:** Ensure all systems synchronize to NTP, include time stamps in exported logs and reports, and validate time consistency across regions. **Verification Method:** Check NTP/synchronization configs, review timestamps in sample logs, and test cross-region event correlation. **Priority:** Medium ##### ISO 27001:2022 Controls **A.18.1** **Requirement:** The organization shall identify and document applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual requirements and the organization's approach to meeting those requirements. **Relevance:** Compliance and reporting for data residency and exports require identifying legal requirements and documenting controls to meet them. **Integration Tips:** Map data residency laws to project locations, implement data localization controls, and provide exportable reports and logs for audits and regulatory requests. **Verification Method:** Review compliance mappings, check data localization controls in configuration, and validate that exportable reports/logs meet regulatory needs. **Priority:** High ### 6.3. Cross-Functional Security Controls The following controls apply globally across all system components: **Centralized Logging and Monitoring** *Description:* Produce structured logs across applications, infrastructure, and network; aggregate logs into a central trusted location for analysis, correlation, and alerting. *Applies to:* Integrated monitoring and analytics for cloud, network, infra and applications, AI-assisted fault detection and automated alerting/notification, Capacity monitoring and automated capacity warning system, Audit logging and retention for actions, configuration changes and access, Platform-wide dashboards for admins with full visibility and audit trails, Notification delivery and role/policy-based notification rules and dashboards, Ticketing system for project-to-platform and internal support workflows *Implementation Guidance:* Instrument all components with structured logs and consistent metadata (user, project, role, component, timestamp), forward logs over TLS to a tamper-evident central platform (SIEM), apply retention and access controls, and integrate with analytics/alerting and ticketing systems. **Encryption and Key Management** *Description:* Use cryptographic protection for data at rest and in transit and centralized, policy-driven key management to protect secrets, credentials, and telemetry. *Applies to:* Project credential management and granular access rules (secrets/keys), Secure storage and handling of sensitive data (secrets, credentials, telemetry), Project isolation (storage/data plane), Compliance and reporting features (exportable logs) *Implementation Guidance:* Adopt an enterprise KMS/HSM for key storage, enforce TLS for all communications, encrypt sensitive stores and backups, define key rotation and access policies, and ensure keys are accessible only via least-privilege IAM roles. **Role-Based Access Control and Least Privilege** *Description:* Implement RBAC with defined roles, separation of duties, and enforcement of least privilege across APIs, UIs, and automation interfaces. *Applies to:* User registration and login with role-based access control and session management, Platform administrator registration and privileged admin workflows, Multi-project membership support with per-user, per-project role assignments, Notification delivery and role/policy-based notification rules and dashboards, API and CLI for automation and integration with external systems *Implementation Guidance:* Define role matrices per project, centralize authorization checks, implement server-side enforcement for every request, use just-in-time elevation for high-risk tasks, and audit role changes. **Secure Development and Operational Procedures** *Description:* Documented operational procedures, secure baseline configurations, and change control to ensure secure provisioning, lifecycle management, and automated remediation are safe and auditable. *Applies to:* Resource provisioning and lifecycle management (deploy/destroy VNFs, CNFs, apps, networks), Project creation workflow with quota and resource availability checks, Policy-driven automated remediation actions (optional/controlled), Health and security scanning (vulnerability, misconfiguration, integrity checks) *Implementation Guidance:* Maintain version-controlled baselines, document runbooks and automation playbooks, implement change-control approvals for critical changes, and include rollback/dry-run capabilities in automation. ### 6.4. Requirements Traceability Overview This section demonstrates complete traceability from high-level requirements through threats to security controls and verification methods. **Coverage Summary:** Traceability matrix contains 25 requirements. 25 requirements (100.0%) linked to threats. 18 requirements (72.0%) mapped to security controls (OWASP ASVS, NIST SP 800-53, ISO 27001). Coverage: Partial. #### Sample Traceability Mappings The following table shows traceability for high-priority requirements: | Req ID | Requirement | Threats | Security Controls | Standards | Priority | Verification | |--------|-------------|---------|-------------------|-----------|----------|-------------| | REQ-001 | User registration and login through the ... | 10 threats | 5 controls | ISO27001, NIST, OWASP | Critical | Audit registration/de-registration records, review workflow documentation, and sample test user onboarding/offboarding for compliance. | | REQ-002 | Platform administrator registration and ... | 8 threats | 4 controls | ISO27001, NIST, OWASP | Critical | Review server-side authorization code, perform access control testing (role-based tests), and use automated tests to confirm enforcement. | | REQ-004 | Per-user, per-project policy customizati... | 10 threats | 3 controls | ISO27001, NIST, OWASP | Critical | Test access enforcement across project boundaries, review policy decision points, and validate denied/allowed scenarios for different roles. | | REQ-007 | Cloud resource administration capability... | 10 threats | 3 controls | ISO27001, NIST, OWASP | Critical | Review baseline configuration documents, inspect deployed instances for compliance, and perform configuration drift scans. | | REQ-008 | Project credential and secrets managemen... | 10 threats | 3 controls | ISO27001, NIST, OWASP | Critical | Review cryptographic policy, inspect encryption configurations, and validate key management practices (HSM/KMS use). | | REQ-009 | Strict multi-tenant project isolation ac... | 10 threats | 3 controls | ISO27001, NIST, OWASP | Critical | Perform targeted tests for tenant isolation, inspect data access paths for tenant ID enforcement, and review caching/session partitioning. | | REQ-015 | Ticketing system integrated with user pr... | 10 threats | 4 controls | ISO27001, NIST, OWASP | Critical | Review server-side authorization code, perform access control testing (role-based tests), and use automated tests to confirm enforcement. | | REQ-016 | Platform administrators have read/write ... | 10 threats | 4 controls | ISO27001, NIST, OWASP | Critical | Review server-side authorization code, perform access control testing (role-based tests), and use automated tests to confirm enforcement. | | REQ-017 | Audit logging of user actions, administr... | 10 threats | 3 controls | ISO27001, NIST, OWASP | Critical | Inspect log retention configuration, review periodic log review records, and verify deletion/purge processes respect retention policy. | | REQ-006 | Project creation workflow where register... | 10 threats | 3 controls | ISO27001, NIST, OWASP | High | Inspect asset inventory, test project creation flows against inventory data, and review quota update transactions. | *Showing 10 of 25 requirements. See Appendix D for complete traceability matrix.* #### Traceability Statistics - **Total Requirements Tracked:** 25 - **Requirements Linked to Threats:** 25 (100.0%) - **Requirements Mapped to Controls:** 18 (72.0%) - **Average Controls per Requirement:** 2.4 - **Control Distribution by Standard:** - NIST SP 800-53: 22 controls - OWASP ASVS: 19 controls - ISO 27001: 18 controls - **Verification Coverage:** 100% (all requirements have verification methods) --- ## 7. AI/ML Security Requirements This section addresses security requirements specific to artificial intelligence and machine learning components within the system. AI/ML systems introduce unique security challenges including prompt injection attacks, data poisoning, model theft, adversarial inputs, and bias vulnerabilities. This analysis identifies AI/ML components, assesses their security risks, and prescribes specialized controls to protect both the AI systems themselves and the data they process. ### 7.1. AI/ML Components Detected This section identifies all AI/ML components within the system that require specialized security controls. 1. **AI Fault Detection System**: Utilizes machine learning algorithms to analyze system performance and detect anomalies that may indicate faults in the cloud infrastructure. 2. **Automated Notification System**: Leverages AI to trigger alerts based on monitored metrics, including system capacity and health checks. 3. **Health and Security Checks**: Incorporates AI-driven methods for vulnerability scanning and misconfiguration detection across the platform. ### 7.2. AI/ML Threat Model | Component | Identified Threats | |-------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------| | AI Fault Detection System | - Prompt injection leading to false positives/negatives | | | - Adversarial inputs that manipulate fault detection | | | - Model poisoning through malicious training data | | Automated Notification System | - Data leakage of sensitive information via notifications | | | - Spam or denial-of-service through excessive alerts | | Health and Security Checks | - Model inversion attacks to extract sensitive training data | | | - Bias in detecting vulnerabilities leading to blind spots | ### 7.3. AI/ML Security Controls #### AI Fault Detection System - **Input Validation**: Ensure that all inputs to the AI system are thoroughly validated to prevent prompt injection attacks. - **Output Filtering and Sanitization**: Implement measures to sanitize AI outputs, preventing potentially harmful or misleading alerts. #### Automated Notification System - **Rate Limiting and Abuse Prevention**: Establish thresholds for notifications to prevent spam and denial-of-service attacks. - **Data Leakage Prevention**: Ensure no personally identifiable information (PII) is included in notifications sent through the platform. #### Health and Security Checks - **Model Access Controls**: Restrict access to AI models based on roles to prevent unauthorized manipulation. - **Monitoring for Adversarial Inputs**: Continuously monitor inputs to the health checks for signs of adversarial manipulation or model poisoning. - **Model Versioning and Rollback Capabilities**: Maintain version control for AI models, allowing quick rollback to previous stable versions in case of a detected compromise. ### 7.4. Integration with Existing Security Controls AI controls are designed to integrate seamlessly with existing security practices, including role-based access control (RBAC), audit logging, and compliance features. The AI components will inherit the security measures already in place for user authentication, authorization, and data protection, ensuring a unified security posture across the platform. ### 7.5. AI/ML Monitoring Requirements | Monitoring Area | Description | |--------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------| | Anomaly Detection | Monitor AI fault detection performance for accuracy and false positives. | | Notification System Activity | Track the volume and type of notifications sent to prevent abuse. | | Health Check Integrity | Regular audits of health and security checks to identify biases or inaccuracies. | | Model Performance | Continuous evaluation of AI models for performance degradation or adversarial impacts. | --- ## 8. Compliance Requirements This section identifies regulatory and legal compliance obligations applicable to the system based on data types, geographic scope, industry sector, and business operations. Compliance requirements drive specific security controls, data handling procedures, audit capabilities, and privacy protections. Non-compliance can result in significant legal penalties, reputational damage, and business disruption. This analysis maps applicable regulations to specific security requirements and operational procedures. ### 8.1. Applicable Regulations The identification of applicable regulations for the Multi-Tenancy Private Cloud Management Platform is based on the types of data processed, the geographic scope of operations, industry standards, and the nature of business activities. The platform handles user data, potentially includes health information, and has functionalities that could involve financial transactions. These factors collectively trigger various regulatory obligations that directly influence security controls, data handling procedures, and operational processes necessary to ensure compliance. | Regulation | Applicability Reason | |--------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | GDPR | Applies because the system processes personal data of EU residents, including user registration and policy management. | | CCPA | Relevant due to the handling of personal data of California residents, necessitating consumer rights and disclosures. | | HIPAA | Applicable if the platform manages any health-related information of users, warranting strict data protection measures. | | PCI-DSS | Relevant if the platform processes payment card data, requiring compliance with security standards for payment transactions. | | SOX | Applicable due to the potential management of financial data and ensuring the integrity of financial reporting. | | GLBA | Relevant if financial institutions' data is handled, requiring privacy notices and safeguards for customer data. | | COPPA | Applicable if the platform collects data from children under 13, necessitating parental consent and privacy protections. | | Data Residency Laws | Relevant based on the geographic location of users, which may impose restrictions on data storage and processing. | ### 8.2. Compliance Controls by Regulation #### GDPR - Implement data minimization principles by only collecting necessary personal data. - Ensure user consent is obtained for data collection and processing. - Provide options for data portability and erasure upon request. - Enforce strong access controls and data encryption for personal data. #### CCPA - Implement clear privacy notices that inform users about data collection and usage. - Provide users with the right to opt-out of the sale of their personal information. - Allow users to request access to their personal data and the deletion of their data. #### HIPAA - Establish administrative, physical, and technical safeguards for health information. - Conduct regular risk assessments and implement security measures to protect health information. - Ensure business associate agreements are in place with third-party vendors who handle health data. #### PCI-DSS - Encrypt payment data during transmission and storage. - Maintain a secure network infrastructure to protect cardholder data. - Implement access controls and monitoring systems for payment transaction processing. #### SOX - Enforce internal controls for financial data accuracy and security. - Maintain audit trails for all financial transactions and reporting. #### GLBA - Provide privacy notices detailing how customer data is collected and shared. - Implement security measures to protect customer financial information. #### COPPA - Obtain verifiable parental consent before collecting information from children under 13. - Provide clear privacy policies regarding children's data handling. #### Data Residency Laws - Implement geographic data storage and processing protocols based on user location. - Provide mechanisms for compliance with local data protection laws. ### 8.3. Data Subject Rights | Right | Description | |-------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Right to Access | Users can request access to their personal data held by the platform. | | Right to Erasure | Users can request deletion of their personal data from the platform. | | Right to Data Portability | Users can request their data in a structured, commonly used format for transfer to another service. | | Right to Opt-Out | Users can opt-out of the sale of their personal information as per CCPA requirements. | ### 8.4. Privacy Requirements **Consent:** Users must provide explicit consent for data collection and processing activities. **Privacy Notices:** Clear and concise privacy policies must be provided to users, outlining data collection, usage, and rights. **Data Security:** Implement security measures to safeguard personal data against unauthorized access and breaches. ### 8.5. Audit and Monitoring Requirements **Logging:** Maintain detailed logs of all user activities, access events, and administrative changes for compliance and auditing purposes. **Monitoring:** Continuous monitoring of data access and processing activities to detect any unauthorized actions or anomalies. ### 8.6. Data Handling Rules **Retention:** Personal data should be retained only as long as necessary to fulfill the purpose for which it was collected. **Deletion:** Implement procedures for the secure deletion of personal data when it is no longer needed or upon user request. ### 8.7. Compliance Risk Assessment The compliance risk assessment identifies areas where the platform may be vulnerable to regulatory non-compliance. It highlights potential gaps in data protection measures, user rights, and regulatory obligations that could lead to legal consequences or reputational damage. **Key Compliance Risks:** - Inadequate consent management leading to unauthorized data processing. - Insufficient security controls exposing personal and sensitive data to breaches. - Failure to provide users with access to their data and rights under applicable regulations. --- ## 9. Security Architecture Recommendations This section provides comprehensive security architecture guidance that integrates security controls into the system's technical design. Security architecture defines how security principles, controls, and patterns are applied across system components to create a cohesive, defense-in-depth security posture. The recommendations address architectural principles, component-level controls, data protection strategies, and third-party integration security to ensure security is built into the system design. ### 9.1. Architectural Security Principles Architectural security principles provide the foundational philosophy guiding all security design decisions. These principles ensure a consistent security posture across all system components and guide the selection and implementation of security controls, balancing security with usability, scalability and operational needs. - **Zero Trust Architecture principles**: Never trust, always verify — authenticate and authorize every request, device and component regardless of network location. This reduces implicit trust in network boundaries and mitigates lateral movement and insider threats. - **Defense in Depth**: Apply layered controls across network, host, application, and data layers so a failure in one control does not lead to full compromise. This provides redundancy and compensating controls for resilient protection. - **Principle of Least Privilege**: Grant users, services, and processes the minimum permissions necessary and prefer just-in-time elevation for sensitive tasks. This reduces blast radius from misconfiguration or compromise. - **Secure by Default / Secure by Design**: Defaults must be secure (deny-by-default); security considerations and controls are incorporated from design through development and operations to minimize configuration drift and insecure defaults. - **Separation of Duties**: Split critical roles and privileges (e.g., provisioning vs. approval) to reduce insider risk and enforce governance for policy and change approvals. - **Fail Secure**: On failure, systems should fail into a safe state (e.g., deny access, quarantine workloads) rather than an open state that permits risky behavior. - **Complete Mediation (Always Check)**: Every access request must be checked by the authoritative policy point — no shortcuts or cached bypasses for authorization decisions without validation. - **Immutable and Tamper-Evident Logging**: Ensure audit trails are immutable and verifiable to support forensics and compliance. - **Separation of Control and Data Planes**: Keep control-plane operations and data-plane traffic separated and governed differently to reduce risk of lateral manipulation of infrastructure. - **Privacy by Design**: Minimize sensitive personal data processed, implement pseudonymization where possible, and provide data locality controls for compliance. - **Least Common Mechanism**: Avoid shared components across tenants where sharing creates risk; prefer tenant-specific isolation or strong logical separation mechanisms. ### 9.2. Component-Level Security Controls #### Edge Layer **Required Controls:** - DDoS protection at network and transport layers - Web Application Firewall (WAF) tuned to block OWASP top-10 attacks - TLS 1.3 termination or passthrough depending on inspection requirements - Mutual TLS (mTLS) for upstream internal connections (edge → API gateway) - Geo-fencing / IP allow-listing for management endpoints - API rate-limiting and throttling per client / tenant - Logging of ingress events with tenant metadata and tamper-evident forwarding - TLS certificate lifecycle management (monitoring and rotation) - Bot management and anomaly detection at edge **Recommended Patterns:** - Hardened Load Balancer + WAF in front of API Gateway - CDN for static content with origin shielding and tokenized URLs - TLS 1.3 with modern cipher suites and HSTS for browsers - Network ACLs / firewall rules tied to infrastructure-as-code (IaC) - Edge security configuration managed via version-controlled templates #### Frontend Layer (User-facing Web SPA, Admin UI, CLI endpoints) **Required Controls:** - Enforce strong authentication flows (OIDC/OAuth2 + MFA) - Content Security Policy (CSP), X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options - Secure cookie attributes (Secure, HttpOnly, SameSite=strict where appropriate) - Prevent CSRF via anti-CSRF tokens or SameSite mechanisms - Input validation & output encoding to prevent XSS and injection - Short-lived tokens with refresh token rotation and revocation lists - Session management: inactivity timeouts and absolute session lifetimes - Strict CORS rules bound to allowed origins - Client-side telemetry obfuscation to avoid leaking sensitive project details **Recommended Patterns:** - SPA served from CDN with SRI (subresource integrity) and immutable caching - Use OIDC for SSO with centralized identity provider and adaptive MFA - Token storage in browser: use in-memory and refresh flows to avoid long-lived local storage - CLI: support OAuth2 device flow or client-cert auth for non-interactive automation #### Application Services (API Gateway, AuthN/AuthZ, Project & Policy Engines, Provisioning, Ticketing) **Required Controls:** - Centralized authentication & authorization (OAuth2/OIDC, RBAC/ABAC) with per-request enforcement - Policy Decision Point (PDP) + Policy Enforcement Point (PEP) architecture for per-user, per-project policies - Input validation, schema enforcement, and strong business-logic checks - Rate limiting, quotas, and tenant-scoped throttling enforced at API Gateway and services - Detailed, structured audit logging for all privileged and provisioning actions - Just-In-Time (JIT) elevation and break-glass workflows for high-risk admin operations - Secrets never stored in plain text; integration with KMS/vault for runtime retrieval - Idempotent APIs for provisioning with transactional orchestration and rollback - Multi-project membership checks and tenant-awareness in every service call - Strong error handling without leaking internal data in responses **Recommended Patterns:** - API Gateway with OAuth2 bearer token validation, rate-limiting, request size limits - Microservices with a central authn/authz service and sidecar-based access control (e.g., envoy + authz filter) - Policy engine (OPA or policy service) for hierarchical policy + inheritance - Service mesh (e.g., mTLS between services) for intra-cluster encryption and identity - Use of workflow/orchestration engine (e.g., Argo Workflows/Temporal) with durable state and retries #### Data Layer (Identity, Tenant Metadata, Audit Logs, TSDB, Secrets Vault/KMS) **Required Controls:** - Encrypted storage at rest using strong algorithms and enterprise KMS/HSM integration - Transparent Data Encryption (TDE) for DBs plus column-level encryption for secrets/PII - Tenant-aware data model with tenant ID enforced at DB access layer - Immutable and tamper-evident audit-log storage (append-only or WORM) - Time-series DB isolation and RBAC for metrics access - Backups encrypted and access controlled; testable restore and secure deletion - Database activity monitoring and query logging - Key lifecycle management: rotation, use policies, separation of duties for key access **Recommended Patterns:** - Encrypted relational DB with TDE and column encryption + Vault for secrets - Use HSM-backed KMS for root key material and envelope encryption for data keys - Audit logs forwarded to immutable object store (WORM) and SIEM for analysis - Tenant-scoped DB schemas or logical namespaces with strict PEP checks #### Integration & Connectors (Kubernetes, OpenStack, VMware, SDN APIs) **Required Controls:** - Least-privilege service accounts and scoped roles for connectors - Use mTLS or OAuth2 client credentials for connector authentication - Network segmentation and jump-hosting patterns for connector access to customer infra - Input sanitization and validation of commands executed against infra APIs - Rate-limiting, circuit-breakers, and safe retry/backoff behavior for connectors - Connector credential rotation and ephemeral tokens where possible - Audit of every provisioning action with before/after state capture **Recommended Patterns:** - Connector proxies in isolated network zones with restricted egress - Use short-lived ephemeral credentials issued by Vault per operation - Connector orchestration through a control plane with RBAC and approval steps - Use of Kubernetes operator patterns for safe reconciliation and drift detection #### Observability & AI (Metrics, Logs, Anomaly Detection) **Required Controls:** - Secure telemetry pipeline: TLS, authentication, and authorization for ingestion - Pseudonymization or redaction of PII in telemetry streams - Model governance: versioning, explainability, training data provenance and drift monitoring - Rate-limited alerting with deduplication and severity-based escalation - Access controls for dashboards and runbooks with audit trails - Tamper-proof storage for alerts and derived anomaly scores **Recommended Patterns:** - Metrics collection via Prometheus exporters with tenant labels and relabeling to avoid leakage - SIEM + ML pipeline for anomaly detection with human-in-the-loop escalation for high-risk actions - Deploy ML models in isolated inference environments with input validation and poisoning detection - Use event-sourcing to correlate anomalies with provisioning events for runbook generation #### External Services (Email/SMS/Webhooks, CI, Third-party Ticketing, CDN) **Required Controls:** - Secure credentials storage for external service API keys in Vault - Signed webhooks and HMAC verification for inbound events - Egress filtering and allow-listing per external service and tenant - Per-tenant notification routing and suppression controls - Monitoring and alerting for external delivery failures and anomalies **Recommended Patterns:** - Use provider-specific integrations via abstraction layer to rotate keys seamlessly - Signed, timestamped webhook payloads + replay protection - Message queues and reliable delivery with retries and dead-letter queues - Outbound traffic through dedicated egress gateways with observability ### 9.3. Data Protection Strategy **Data Classification:** Public, Internal, Confidential, Restricted - Public: Non-sensitive content intended for public consumption (marketing pages, public docs). - Internal: Operational metadata and non-sensitive telemetry used by platform teams. - Confidential: Project metadata, configuration (non-secrets), non-PII telemetry, and most admin data. - Restricted: Secrets, credentials, private keys, PII, audit logs, tenant data requiring strict access and data residency controls. **Encryption Requirements:** - Data in Transit: - TLS 1.3 mandatory for all external and internal RPC/HTTP traffic. - mTLS for service-to-service and connector-to-infrastructure communications. - Use modern cipher suites (AEAD ciphers such as AES-GCM, ChaCha20-Poly1305). - Data at Rest: - Use AES-256-GCM for symmetric encryption of persisted data (databases, object store, backups). - Use RSA-4096 or ECC P-384 for asymmetric operations where needed; favor ECC (e.g., ECDSA P-384) for certificate/key use. - Envelope encryption: data encrypted with data keys; data keys encrypted by KMS root keys stored in HSM. - Key Management: - Enterprise KMS/HSM for root keys; rotate data-encryption keys periodically (e.g., 90 days default) and rotate key-encryption keys per policy. - Restrict key use via IAM and require dual-control for high-impact key access. - Support cryptographic erasure by destroying keys to render data unreadable. **Retention Policies:** - Audit logs: configurable per customer policy; default retention 1 year, critical security/audit logs retained 7 years (or per regulatory requirement). - Telemetry metrics: high-resolution (raw) data retained 30 days; aggregated metrics retained 1–3 years depending on analytics needs and compliance. - Backups: retain daily backups for 30 days, weekly snapshots for 90 days, monthly snapshots for 1 year (configurable). - Secrets: rotation schedule depending on risk — default 90 days; rotation on compromise or role change immediate. - Project data: retention and deletion aligned to customer data residency and legal holds; default safe-delete retention window 30 days before purge to allow recovery. - Exportable logs: support on-demand exports with proper access control and encryption; maintain export logs for auditing. **Handling Procedures:** - Access: - Enforce RBAC/ABAC for every data access; require PDP decision per request. - Log and monitor all accesses to Confidential and Restricted data; alert on anomalous access patterns. - Transmission: - All internal and external transfers use TLS or mTLS; use signed payloads for webhooks. - Pseudonymize or tokenise PII in telemetry before transmission to external analytics pipelines. - Storage: - Secrets stored only in KMS/Vault; application config only references secrets by ID, retrieved at runtime with short TTL. - Use tenant-scoped storage buckets or logical namespaces; tag all objects with tenant, region and retention metadata. - Deletion: - Use secure deletion procedures: for object stores, delete objects and their versions; for encrypted stores, perform cryptographic erasure by deleting keys. - Maintain deletion proof logs (who/when/what) for compliance; perform periodic verification of deletions. - Backups & Disaster Recovery: - Encrypt backups and store in separate physical locations (region-aware) per residency needs. - Test restores quarterly and maintain documented recovery time objectives (RTOs) and recovery point objectives (RPOs). - Data Residency: - Support per-project placement restrictions; enforce processing/storage locations during project creation and provisioning checks. - Provide exportable compliance reports identifying physical location and custody of data. - Data Minimization: - Limit PII to what is necessary; provide tools to anonymize or remove PII when not needed. ### 9.4. Third-Party Integration Security **WAF / Load Balancer Appliances (Edge vendors)** *Security Requirements:* - Use of appliance-level management over secure channel (HTTPS + MFA) - Hardened admin interfaces accessible only from management network - Integration with API gateway for request context propagation *Risk Assessment:* Medium — critical for exposure protection but misconfiguration or management compromise could open paths to platform. *Recommended Controls:* - Separate management plane network and IP allow-listing - Strong role-based admin access with MFA - Configuration as code and automated drift detection - Monitor WAF logs for false negatives and tune rules regularly **CDN (optional)** *Security Requirements:* - HTTPS with origin authentication and signed URLs for private content - Cache-control and SRI for integrity of static assets *Risk Assessment:* Low-Medium — exposes static content; misconfiguration may leak sensitive endpoints. *Recommended Controls:* - Tokenized URL access for private content - Strict origin allow-listing and TLS origination - Cache key control to avoid caching sensitive responses **OAuth2/OIDC Identity Providers (SSO)** *Security Requirements:* - OIDC with PKCE for browser flows and client credentials for services - Support for MFA and conditional access policies *Risk Assessment:* High — compromise of identity provider impacts entire platform. *Recommended Controls:* - Use enterprise IdP with strong security posture and SLA - Enforce MFA for all admin and privileged accounts - Monitor IdP logs and integrate with SIEM; support SAML/OIDC federation audits **MFA Provider** *Security Requirements:* - Strong second factor (TOTP / FIDO2 / push) and attestation - Secure registration and recovery flows *Risk Assessment:* High — MFA bypass undermines access protections. *Recommended Controls:* - Enforce phishing-resistant factors for admins (FIDO2) - Require attestation and device registration policies - Backup/escape mechanisms with strict verification and audit **Enterprise KMS / HSM** *Security Requirements:* - HSM-backed key storage - Role separation for key management operations - Logging for key usage and rotation operations *Risk Assessment:* Critical — KMS compromise allows decryption and widespread data access. *Recommended Controls:* - Limit direct access to HSM; use envelope encryption - Multi-person controls for key deletion/destruction - Key access via short-lived credentials and strictly-scoped IAM roles **Relational DB / Distributed Datastore** *Security Requirements:* - Encrypted connections (TLS) with client auth for DB access - Network isolation and private endpoints for DB access only from platform services *Risk Assessment:* High — DB compromise exposes tenant metadata and possibly secrets. *Recommended Controls:* - TDE and column-level encryption for sensitive fields - DB activity monitoring and privileged session recording - Vulnerability scanning and hardened DB configuration templates **Time-Series DBs (Prometheus/InfluxDB)** *Security Requirements:* - TLS for remote write/reads and authentication/authorization per tenant - Limits on query cost and retention *Risk Assessment:* Medium — leak of metrics could reveal capacity data or PII in labels. *Recommended Controls:* - Use relabeling to scrub PII in metric labels - Tenant-scoped metrics instances or rigorous label hygiene - Rate limiting and query performance guards **Kubernetes API (customer infra)** *Security Requirements:* - Use RBAC with narrow scoped service accounts - mTLS or short-lived tokens for connector authentication *Risk Assessment:* High — mishandled permission can lead to cluster compromise and cross-tenant exposure. *Recommended Controls:* - Use admission controllers, Pod Security Standards, and namespace quotas - Ephemeral service account tokens issued by Vault for operations - Audit logging of all connector actions and before/after snapshots **OpenStack / VMware APIs** *Security Requirements:* - Use HTTPS with certificate pinning or mTLS - Strict IAM policies and per-project service credentials *Risk Assessment:* High — infrastructure-level compromise allows data exfiltration and resource abuse. *Recommended Controls:* - Use least-privilege cloud roles and rotate credentials frequently - Limit connector network path and log all provisioning API calls - Implement pre-provisioning checks and post-provisioning hardening scripts **SDN Controller APIs** *Security Requirements:* - Secure channel (mTLS), role-based access and command validation - Strict change management and approval for network changes *Risk Assessment:* High — network misconfiguration can remove tenant isolation *Recommended Controls:* - Policy-as-code for network changes with peer-review and approval gates - Simulation/dry-run mode for changes and rollback capability - Continuous verification of network segmentation effectiveness **AI/ML Frameworks & Optional External ML Services** *Security Requirements:* - Secure model pipelines and separation of training vs inference data - Access control for model endpoints and training data *Risk Assessment:* Medium-High — model poisoning or exfiltration of training data can create false positives/negatives or leak sensitive data. *Recommended Controls:* - Validate and sanitize training data; monitor for drift and poisoning indicators - Run inference in isolated, authenticated environments; sign model artifacts - Version and audit models; human-in-the-loop for high-impact automated actions **Email / SMS Providers** *Security Requirements:* - Store provider credentials in vault and rotate frequently - TLS for API calls and signed messages where possible *Risk Assessment:* Medium — compromise can lead to phishing or unauthorized alerts. *Recommended Controls:* - Rate-limiting, monitoring of abnormal send patterns - Use domain-level protections (SPF, DKIM, DMARC) and SMS sender verification - Allow per-project notification throttles and opt-out controls **Webhook / CI Endpoints (external integrators)** *Security Requirements:* - HMAC-signed payloads and replay protection - IP allow-listing and mutual authentication where feasible *Risk Assessment:* Medium — spoofed webhooks can trigger unauthorized automation. *Recommended Controls:* - Validate signature and timestamp on incoming webhooks - Provide configurable per-tenant secret rotation for webhook signing - Log and alert on repeated failures and suspicious webhook activity **Third-party Ticketing / ITSM Systems** *Security Requirements:* - OAuth2 or API-key based integration with limited scopes - Data redaction controls for sensitive ticket fields *Risk Assessment:* Medium — tickets can contain sensitive debugging data or credentials. *Recommended Controls:* - Prevent storing secrets in tickets and implement field redaction - Integrate ticket actions with audit logs in platform; require RBAC for ticket visibility - Monitor access and export actions from ticketing systems ### How these elements work together (holistic view) - Identity is the central trust anchor: every request is authenticated (OIDC/OAuth2) and authorized by a central PDP that enforces per-user, per-project, and per-role policies. MFA is enforced for all privileged operations and admin UIs. - The Edge Layer enforces the first line of defense: rate limiting, WAF rules and DDoS mitigation. The API Gateway performs token validation and context propagation (tenant id, role) and forwards to backend services running within a service mesh for strong mTLS. - Application services are small, tenant-aware microservices with centralized policy enforcement. All secrets are fetched at runtime from the secrets vault; no secrets in code or images. - Provisioning and connectors operate with ephemeral credentials and strict RBAC; operations are orchestrated via a workflow engine that supports idempotency, dry-run, and rollback. - Observability and AI ingest labeled telemetry that preserves tenant separation and avoids PII leakage. Anomaly detections feed notifications into ticketing and notification subsystems; high-impact auto-remediations require policy approval gates and are auditable. - Data flows are always encrypted and scoped by tenant; audit logs are forwarded to immutable storage and SIEM for detection and compliance reporting. Retention policies and exports are governed by project-level and regulatory policies enforced in the platform. - Third-party integrations are wrapped with abstraction layers to manage secrets, rotate credentials, and standardize authentication (mTLS/OAuth2/HMAC); logs of outbound and inbound exchanges are aggregated for monitoring and threat hunting. - Governance, secure-by-default IaC and CI/CD pipelines ensure consistent secure baselines; change control, vulnerability scanning, and regular pen testing provide continuous validation. This architecture and controls map directly to defense-in-depth, zero-trust and compliance requirements and provide a secure, auditable, and operationally manageable multi-tenant private cloud management platform. --- ## 10. Implementation Roadmap This section provides a prioritized, phased approach for implementing the security controls identified throughout this analysis. The roadmap organizes security measures into logical phases based on risk, dependencies, and resource availability, ensuring critical security gaps are addressed first while building a foundation for comprehensive security coverage. ### 10.1. Prioritization Framework Prioritization is critical for effective security implementation as it ensures that resources are allocated efficiently to address the most pressing risks and compliance requirements first. It balances immediate needs with long-term goals, enabling an organization to systematically enhance its security posture without overwhelming its resources. **Prioritization Criteria:** - **Risk Level**: Controls addressing critical and high-risk threats (identified through threat modeling) are prioritized first. - **Compliance Deadlines**: Regulatory requirements and compliance deadlines influence immediate priority. - **Technical Complexity**: Controls requiring foundational infrastructure are implemented early to enable subsequent controls. - **Dependencies**: Controls that other security measures depend upon are prioritized accordingly. - **Resource Availability**: Implementation considers the availability of skilled personnel, tools, and budget. - **Business Impact**: Controls protecting business-critical functions and data receive higher priority. These criteria work together to create a logical implementation sequence that balances security needs with practical constraints, ensuring that the organization addresses the most significant threats and compliance issues first while laying the groundwork for ongoing improvements. ### 10.2. Phased Implementation Plan #### Phase: IMMEDIATE **Timeline:** 0-1 months **Rationale:** This phase addresses critical vulnerabilities and compliance blockers that pose the highest risk if left unaddressed. It lays the groundwork for essential security functions like authentication and data protection. **Controls to Implement:** - Implement strong password policies and mandatory multi-factor authentication (MFA) for all user accounts. - Deploy basic encryption for sensitive data at rest and in transit. - Ensure compliance with critical regulatory requirements to avoid legal penalties. - Address critical vulnerabilities identified in threat modeling. **Dependencies:** - None #### Phase: SHORT-TERM **Timeline:** 1-3 months **Rationale:** These controls build upon immediate security measures, focusing on improving access control adjustments and ensuring that logging and API security mitigate identified threats effectively. **Controls to Implement:** - Enhance user authentication through comprehensive multi-factor authentication. - Deploy role-based access controls across the admin dashboard. - Implement comprehensive logging and monitoring for all administrative actions. - Strengthen API security with input validation and HTTPS protocols. - Begin encryption for all sensitive data at rest. **Dependencies:** - Completion of TLS Implementation - Completion of multi-factor authentication #### Phase: MEDIUM-TERM **Timeline:** 3-6 months **Rationale:** This phase focuses on advanced security measures that require more detailed planning and integration, such as threat detection and security testing. **Controls to Implement:** - Implement advanced threat detection using AI-assisted tools. - Automate security testing processes for continuous assessment. - Conduct third-party security audits to identify and rectify gaps. - Enhance data protection measures, including advanced encryption strategies and key management. **Dependencies:** - Establishment of comprehensive logging and monitoring - Integration of enhanced authentication mechanisms #### Phase: LONG-TERM **Timeline:** 6-12 months **Rationale:** Strategic initiatives aimed at enhancing security maturity and embedding security into the organizational culture and processes. **Controls to Implement:** - Develop and implement security maturity enhancements across all systems. - Deploy advanced AI/ML security controls for proactive threat management. - Conduct comprehensive penetration testing to validate security measures. - Establish ongoing security awareness programs to educate employees. **Dependencies:** - Completion of advanced threat detection - Implementation of data protection enhancements #### Phase: ONGOING **Timeline:** Continuous **Rationale:** Continuous activities that ensure the long-term integrity and resilience of the security posture. **Controls to Implement:** - Maintain continuous security monitoring and incident response readiness. - Regularly apply patches and updates to all systems. - Conduct periodic compliance audits to ensure ongoing regulatory adherence. - Maintain and update incident response plans as threats evolve. **Dependencies:** - Establishment of comprehensive logging and monitoring - Integration of enhanced authentication mechanisms ### 10.3. Resource Requirements Skills: Security engineers, Security architects, Web developers, Compliance specialists. Recommended tools: SIEM solutions for logging and monitoring, Vulnerability scanners for testing, Encryption libraries for data protection, API management tools for secure interfaces. Estimated time effort: Approximately 3-6 months for initial phases, with ongoing efforts extending resources as per system complexity and requirements. --- ## 11. Verification and Testing Strategy ### 11.1. Testing Approach Integrate security testing throughout the software development lifecycle (SDLC) with an emphasis on continuous security practices. Balance automated scanning with manual evaluations to prioritize high-risk areas based on business impact, adhering to shift-left security principles by incorporating security testing earlier and continuously. This approach will enable early detection of vulnerabilities, enhance security awareness among developers, and ensure compliance with regulatory requirements. ### 11.2. Testing Methods | Method | Frequency | Tools | |-------------------------------------------------|---------------------------|-----------------------------------------------| | STATIC APPLICATION SECURITY TESTING (SAST) | Every commit/build | SonarQube, Semgrep, Checkmarx, CodeQL | | DYNAMIC APPLICATION SECURITY TESTING (DAST) | Nightly/weekly | OWASP ZAP, Burp Suite, Acunetix | | DEPENDENCY SCANNING | Every build | Snyk, Dependabot, OWASP Dependency-Check | | SECRETS SCANNING | Every commit | TruffleHog, GitLeaks, GitHub Secret Scanning | | CONTAINER/INFRASTRUCTURE SCANNING | Every deployment | Trivy, Clair, Prowler, ScoutSuite | | PENETRATION TESTING | Quarterly or before major releases | Custom scripts, Metasploit, Burp Suite Pro | | SECURITY CODE REVIEW | For critical features | GitHub/GitLab code review, security checklists | | COMPLIANCE SCANNING | Continuous | AWS Config, Azure Policy, Cloud Custodian | ### 11.3. Compliance Verification Multi-standard compliance (OWASP ASVS, NIST SP 800-53, ISO 27001) will be verified through automated tools and manual checks against regulatory requirements such as GDPR, CCPA, HIPAA, and PCI-DSS. Audit preparation will involve ensuring documentation and evidence collection for external audits, including logs, security configurations, and test results. Recommendations will include engaging third-party auditors for comprehensive evaluations to validate adherence to compliance controls and identify any gaps in security measures. ### 11.4. Continuous Monitoring Implement Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) for real-time monitoring, supported by Intrusion Detection/Prevention Systems (IDS/IPS) to identify and mitigate threats. All logs will be aggregated and analyzed for anomalies, with integration into incident response processes to ensure prompt action against security events. Continuous monitoring will also include automated compliance checks and health scans to maintain security posture and compliance with applicable regulations. ### 11.5. Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) - Mean time to detect (MTTD) security issues - Mean time to remediate (MTTR) vulnerabilities - Percentage of critical vulnerabilities patched within SLA - Security test coverage percentage - False positive rate in automated scanning - Compliance audit pass rate ### 11.6. Control Mapping | Testing Method | Applicable Controls | |----------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | STATIC APPLICATION SECURITY TESTING (SAST) | Input validation, injection flaws, hardcoded secrets (OWASP ASVS, NIST SP 800-53) | | DYNAMIC APPLICATION SECURITY TESTING (DAST) | Authentication, authorization, XSS, CSRF, SQL injection (OWASP ASVS, NIST SP 800-53) | | DEPENDENCY SCANNING | Supply chain security (OWASP ASVS, NIST SP 800-53) | | SECRETS SCANNING | Cryptographic protection (OWASP ASVS, NIST SP 800-53) | | CONTAINER/INFRASTRUCTURE SCANNING | Configuration management (OWASP ASVS, ISO 27001) | | PENETRATION TESTING | All high-risk controls (OWASP ASVS, NIST SP 800-53) | | SECURITY CODE REVIEW | Authentication, authorization, crypto implementations (OWASP ASVS, NIST SP 800-53) | | COMPLIANCE SCANNING | All compliance-related controls (ISO 27001, GDPR, HIPAA, PCI-DSS) | --- ## 12. Validation Report This section presents a comprehensive validation of the security requirements generated throughout this analysis. The validation evaluates the requirements against five key dimensions: completeness, consistency, correctness, implementability, and alignment with business objectives. This assessment ensures that the security requirements are comprehensive, technically sound, and actionable for implementation teams. ### 12.1. Overall Assessment The overall validation score reflects the quality and completeness of the security requirements across five critical dimensions. Each dimension is scored from 0.0 to 1.0, with 1.0 representing excellent coverage and 0.0 indicating significant gaps. **Overall Score:** 0.84/1.0 **Validation Status:** ✅ PASSED The security requirements have met the quality threshold (≥0.8) and are ready for implementation. The requirements demonstrate comprehensive coverage, technical accuracy, and alignment with business objectives. The validation assesses: - **Completeness**: Are all identified security concerns adequately addressed? - **Consistency**: Do requirements align with each other without contradictions? - **Correctness**: Are controls appropriate for the identified risks and correctly applied? - **Implementability**: Are requirements specific, actionable, and feasible to implement? - **Alignment**: Do security requirements align with business requirements and objectives? ### 12.2. Dimension Scores | Dimension | Score | Status | |-----------|-------|--------| | Completeness | 0.80 | ✅ | | Consistency | 0.90 | ✅ | | Correctness | 0.85 | ✅ | | Implementability | 0.75 | ⚠️ | | Alignment | 0.90 | ✅ | **Score Interpretation:** - ✅ 0.8-1.0: Excellent - ⚠️ 0.7-0.79: Acceptable (minor improvements needed) - ❌ <0.7: Needs significant improvement ### 12.3. Detailed Feedback Summary: The provided security-control mapping is comprehensive and well-aligned with the business requirements: it covers authentication, RBAC, session management, secrets management, multi-tenant isolation, logging/monitoring, AI/ML-specific risks, and compliance. Cross-functional controls (centralized logging, encryption/KMS, RBAC, secure ops) are appropriate and useful. Strengths include: good mapping to NIST/ISO/OWASP, explicit audit/logging and retention controls, AI/ML threat identification, and practical integration tips. Key gaps and recommended actions (actionable, prioritized): 1) Identity & Access Management maturity (High priority) - Add explicit controls/specs for: a) Enterprise SSO/federation (SAML/OIDC), SCIM for provisioning/deprovisioning, and how per-project roles map across federated identities; b) Mandatory MFA policy (administrators and project owners) and enforcement method (hardware tokens, TOTP, conditional MFA); c) Privileged Access Management (PAM) and Just-In-Time (JIT) elevation for platform admins with time-bound sessions and session recording. Acceptance criteria: documented SSO flows, SCIM endpoints, MFA enforcement tests, JIT workflow and logs. 2) Tenant isolation operational specifics (High priority) - Provide concrete isolation implementations and test requirements: a) Application-data model tenancy (tenant ID enforcement on every DB query, row-level/namespace isolation), b) Separate caches/sessions and secret stores per tenant or tenant-aware tagging, c) Backup/restore isolation and encryption keyed-per-tenant, d) Network microsegmentation (VLAN/VRF, NSGs), and verification tests for cross-tenant data leakage and lateral movement. Acceptance criteria: test cases demonstrating no cross-tenant access in active exploitation scenarios; documented backup isolation. 3) Secrets and Key Management specifics (High priority) - Strengthen KMS/HSM requirements: a) Key rotation cadence, split of duties for key administration, hardware-backed keys for root secrets, b) Secrets injection and redaction rules to avoid leaking secrets into logs/tickets, c) Short-lived credentials issuance (vaulted dynamic secrets). Acceptance criteria: KMS config, rotation schedule, sample IAM policies, secret-scan results. 4) CI/CD and Supply Chain Security (High priority) - Add controls for secure build/deployment: a) Signed artifacts, image scanning (SCA for dependencies, container images), immutability for production artifacts, b) Pipeline access RBAC and audit, c) Vulnerability gating (fail builds on critical issues) and SBOM production. Acceptance criteria: pipeline policy document, image scan reports, SBOM generation. 5) API/Platform robustness (Medium-High) - Add non-functional security controls: a) API rate-limiting, request throttling, anomaly detection, and DDoS mitigation design, b) WAF and API gateway requirements including authentication/authorization enforcement and request validation, c) Granular API scopes & refresh token revocation processes. Acceptance criteria: load/rate test results, WAF ruleset baseline, API gateway auth tests. 6) AI/ML governance (Medium priority) - Expand AI controls beyond input/output filtering: a) Model governance (training data lineage, provenance, access controls), b) Regular adversarial testing and poisoning detection, c) Explainability and confidence thresholds with human-in-the-loop escalation for high-risk actions, d) Audit trails for model changes and inference decisions. Acceptance criteria: model registry, versioning, threat-test reports, runbooks for false-positive/negative handling. 7) Incident response, forensics and DR (Medium priority) - Define IR playbooks, escalation paths, sandboxed test environments, and backup/restore validation: a) RTO/RPO targets, b) Forensic-ready logging and tamper-evidence for investigations, c) Regular red-team/pen-test schedule. Acceptance criteria: IR runbook, drill reports, RTO/RPO evidence. 8) Compliance/Residency enforcement (Medium priority) - Add technical enforcement of data residency: a) Geo-tagging of data and workloads, hard policy enforcement preventing cross-region replication, b) Export controls and tenant-level consent/records for data subject rights (erasure/portability automation). Acceptance criteria: policy configs enforcing geographic placement, automated DSAR workflows. 9) Monitoring & Telemetry privacy (Medium priority) - Ensure telemetry does not leak PII: a) PII detection and redaction processors in pipeline, b) retention mapping per tenant and per regulation, c) ticketing attachments controls and secure export workflows. Acceptance criteria: telemetry redaction tests, retention config, secure export logs. 10) Implementation specificity & testability (Medium priority) - Many controls are high-level; add explicit, measurable acceptance criteria for developers and QA: a) Enumerated test cases for RBAC, tenant isolation, API auth, secret handling, backup sanitization, and AI alerts; b) SLOs/SLAs for alerting, ticket response, and remediation timelines. Acceptance criteria: test suite matrix, SLO docs. Minor consistency/correctness notes: - A few NIST/ISO references were used at a high level; ensure mapping to specific control baselines used for compliance evidence (e.g., mapping to NIST SP 800-53 rev4/5 families or ISO annex references used in audits). - The “prompt injection” term in AI controls appears oriented to LLM prompts — if AI models are not LLMs, rephrase to “input manipulation/injection” for clarity. Overall recommendation: add a prioritized security roadmap capturing these gaps, each with owners, timelines, and acceptance tests. This will convert the good, standards-aligned control set into an actionable, developer-consumable backlog and test plan. --- ## Appendix A: Original Requirements Document ``` Multi-Tenancy Private Cloud Management Platform Requirements We need to build a web application for managing private cloud infrastructure with multi-tenant project isolation and comprehensive monitoring capabilities. Key Features: 1. User and Policy Management - User registration and login through portal - Platform administrator registration - Register users to single or multiple isolated project spaces - Assign project roles (leader, admin, user) with standard policy rules per role - Support users registered to multiple projects with different roles - Per-user, per-project policy customization 2. Cloud Portal - User-friendly GUI to create, manage and administer cloud projects - Integrated notification, monitoring, analytics, ticketing, health and security systems 3. Project Creation - Registered users can create projects - Define project requirements (quotas, cloud resources, networks, locations) - Create project if available resources meet requirements 4. Cloud Resource Administration - Deploy or destroy project VNFs, CNFs, applications and networks - Set project credentials and access rules - Cloud and network monitoring and analytics - Ticketing system for requests to platform admin team 5. Platform Administration - Platform admins have access to all projects for support - Access to ticketing system to interact with project users - Access to full platform monitoring and analytics 6. Monitoring and Analytics - Monitor all systems within the platform - Automated notifications based on AI fault detection - Automated warnings for reaching system capacity - Dashboard with analytics selection 7. Health and Security System - Health and security checks across cloud, network, infrastructure and applications - Automated notification system flags risks and vulnerabilities - Dashboard with active flags 8. Notifications - Users receive notifications according to their roles and policies - Notifications displayed on portal page - Dashboard with full list of user notifications The platform will manage multi-tenant cloud infrastructure with isolated project workspaces and comprehensive monitoring capabilities. ``` --- ## Appendix B: Glossary | Term | Definition | |------|------------| | ASVS | Application Security Verification Standard (OWASP) | | STRIDE | Spoofing, Tampering, Repudiation, Information Disclosure, Denial of Service, Elevation of Privilege | | SAST | Static Application Security Testing | | DAST | Dynamic Application Security Testing | | MFA | Multi-Factor Authentication | | RBAC | Role-Based Access Control | | PII | Personally Identifiable Information | | PHI | Protected Health Information | | GDPR | General Data Protection Regulation | | HIPAA | Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act | | PCI-DSS | Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard | --- ## Appendix C: Complete Threat List This appendix contains the complete list of all identified threats with full descriptions and mitigation strategies. Threats are organized by risk level for easy reference. ### Critical Risk Threats **THR-003** - Frontend Layer - **Category:** Information Disclosure - **Likelihood:** High | **Impact:** High - **Risk Level:** Critical - **Description:** Persistent or reflected XSS in the web SPA allows attackers to steal UI session tokens, perform actions as victims, or exfiltrate data from the portal. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Enforce strict input validation and output encoding, implement Content Security Policy (CSP), mark session cookies HttpOnly and Secure and use SameSite attributes, use templating frameworks that auto-escape, perform code reviews and automated SAST/DAST scans. **THR-006** - Application Services (Auth / Platform Admin) - **Category:** Spoofing - **Likelihood:** High | **Impact:** High - **Risk Level:** Critical - **Description:** Credential theft (phishing, credential stuffing) or weak password policies allow attacker to gain admin or cross-project access, impersonating privileged users for destructive actions. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Enforce strong password policies, mandatory MFA (hardware tokens for admins), perform credential stuffing detection, implement adaptive authentication, monitor anomalous admin logins and use step-up authentication for sensitive operations. **THR-022** - Edge Layer - **Category:** Denial of Service - **Likelihood:** High | **Impact:** High - **Risk Level:** Critical - **Description:** Large-scale DDoS attack saturates the edge WAF/load balancer or upstream resources, causing platform-wide outage or degraded provisioning/management capability. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Use multi-layer DDoS protection (scrubbing centers/CDN), autoscaling edge capacity, WAF tuning and behavioral baselining, geo-fencing for management endpoints, and playbooks for failover and incident response. ### High Risk Threats **THR-002** - Edge Layer -> Internal Service Links - **Category:** Tampering - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** High - **Risk Level:** High - **Description:** Man-in-the-middle (MITM) or tampering between edge TLS termination and internal services (if internal traffic is unprotected), allowing request modification or credential exposure. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Encrypt internal service-to-service traffic with mTLS, validate certificates (mutual TLS) end-to-end where possible, use strong cipher suites, secure edge management plane, and restrict management network access. **THR-004** - Frontend Layer / Application Services (SSO) - **Category:** Spoofing - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** High - **Risk Level:** High - **Description:** Misconfigured OAuth2/OIDC SSO or insecure token validation allows an attacker to forge identity tokens and impersonate users (including admin), or replay tokens from other tenants. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Use proven OIDC libraries with strict token validation (aud, iss, exp), enforce PKCE for public clients, validate JWT signatures against known keys, require MFA for admin/privileged roles, implement strict session management and short-lived tokens. **THR-007** - Application Services (RBAC / Policy Management) - **Category:** Elevation of Privilege - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** High - **Risk Level:** High - **Description:** Broken or mis-implemented RBAC allows lower-privilege users to escalate to project admin or platform admin roles (e.g., via vulnerable role assignment APIs or insufficient role checks). - **Mitigation Strategy:** Design RBAC with least privilege and role separation, enforce server-side authorization checks on every API, use authorization libraries/policies (e.g., ABAC or policy engine like OPA), require admin approvals or multi-party approval for role changes. **THR-008** - Application Services (Policy & Provisioning APIs) - **Category:** Tampering - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** High - **Risk Level:** High - **Description:** Unauthorized modification of project policies, quotas or provisioning requests through API abuse, IDOR, or insecure direct object references, allowing attackers to change resource allocations or bypass controls. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Validate object access per-request (no client-controlled IDs without server validation), use parameterized queries, implement deny-by-default authorization checks, log and alert on policy changes, and require multi-factor approvals for quota increases. **THR-009** - Application Services / Data Layer (Audit Logs) - **Category:** Repudiation - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** High - **Risk Level:** High - **Description:** Insufficient or tamperable audit logs allow malicious actors to repudiate actions (deny having done them) or hide activity; lack of immutable logging prevents incident investigations. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Send audit logs to an append-only tamper-evident store, protect log integrity with HMAC/signing and separate write-only access, replicate logs to an external SIEM, enable immutable retention and alerting on log deletion attempts. **THR-010** - Application Services / Frontend (Multi-Tenancy Requirement) - **Category:** Information Disclosure - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** High - **Risk Level:** High - **Description:** Cross-tenant data leakage through application bugs, caching misconfigurations, templating errors, or improper filtering of tenant IDs, leading to exposure of tenant metadata or user data across project boundaries. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Enforce strict tenant separation at the service layer, include tenant ID in all access control checks, segregate caches and storage per tenant, perform multitenancy test cases, and run penetration tests focusing on tenant isolation. **THR-011** - Data Layer (Secrets/KMS/DB Backups) - **Category:** Information Disclosure - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** High - **Risk Level:** High - **Description:** Compromise or misconfiguration of the datastore/backups or KMS leading to disclosure of encrypted secrets, credentials, or tenant data (e.g., stolen DB backups or compromised KMS keys). - **Mitigation Strategy:** Use enterprise KMS/HSM with strict key access policies and rotation, encrypt data at rest and backups with different keys, use access control and auditing for key usage, retain minimal plaintext in logs, and implement separation of duties for key management. **THR-012** - Data Layer (Metadata & Audit Stores) - **Category:** Tampering - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** High - **Risk Level:** High - **Description:** Unauthorized alteration of tenant metadata, quota state, or audit logs in the database allowing attackers to change historical records, quotas, or hide activities. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Apply database ACLs with least privilege, use tamper-evident or append-only storage for audits, implement integrity checks and log signing, enable database activity monitoring and block suspicious admin operations, and use multi-region replication with checksums. **THR-013** - Data Layer (Audit Logs) - **Category:** Repudiation - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** High - **Risk Level:** High - **Description:** A compromised service account or admin deletes or forges audit entries, preventing reliable incident reconstruction and enabling attackers to hide actions. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Enforce separation of duty for accounts that can modify logs, restrict log deletion to a minimal set of operations with approvals, stream logs to immutable external systems, and use cryptographic signing of logs. **THR-014** - Integration & Connectors - **Category:** Spoofing - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** High - **Risk Level:** High - **Description:** Compromise of integration/connector credentials (API keys, service accounts) permits attackers to impersonate platform connectors to underlying infrastructure (K8s/OpenStack/VMware) and create/destroy resources or exfiltrate data. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Use short-lived credentials and workload identity (e.g., OIDC for K8s), store credentials in a secrets vault with access controls, enforce least privilege for connector accounts, rotate credentials and audit connector activity, restrict connector management network access with ACLs and mTLS. **THR-015** - Integration & Connectors - **Category:** Tampering - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** High - **Risk Level:** High - **Description:** Malicious or misrouted orchestration commands from connectors or compromised orchestration service modify network segmentation or firewall rules, causing lateral movement or external exposure of tenant workloads. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Enforce change control and authorization for network modifications, require multi-person approval for critical network changes, validate connector identity and commands, implement network microsegmentation and monitoring for unauthorized rule changes. **THR-017** - Observability & AI - **Category:** Information Disclosure - **Likelihood:** High | **Impact:** Medium - **Risk Level:** High - **Description:** Telemetry, logs or metrics inadvertently contain sensitive information (credentials, tokens, PII) that is stored in the metrics/logging backend and accessible to unauthorized users or external ML services. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Scrub PII and secrets from telemetry before ingestion, enforce field-level redaction, use RBAC for observability data, encrypt data at rest in TSDB/logging backends and restrict external ML service access, and perform automated detection of secret patterns. **THR-018** - Observability & AI - **Category:** Tampering - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** High - **Risk Level:** High - **Description:** Adversarial input or poisoning of metrics/telemetry to confuse the AI anomaly engine, causing missed detection or false positives leading to disruptive automated remediation or ignored incidents. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Validate and sanitize telemetry inputs, apply anomaly detection robustness techniques and input validation, maintain separate training and operational pipelines, monitor for concept drift, and require human-in-the-loop for high-impact remediation actions. **THR-019** - Observability & AI (Metrics ingestion) - **Category:** Denial of Service - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** High - **Risk Level:** High - **Description:** Flooding of the metrics/log ingestion pipeline or synthetic telemetry spikes that overwhelm storage/processing causing monitoring and alerting outages and blind spots. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Implement rate limiting and ingestion throttling, apply sampling and aggregation at the source, use autoscaling and backpressure mechanisms, provide tiered storage for hot/warm/cold metrics, and protect ingestion endpoints with authentication and network ACLs. **THR-023** - Application Services (Provisioning APIs) - **Category:** Denial of Service - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** High - **Risk Level:** High - **Description:** API abuse, unthrottled provisioning requests or scripted attacks exhaust orchestration resources, DB connections or backend quotas, preventing legitimate operations and causing cascade failures. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Implement API rate limiting, quotas per user/project, circuit breakers for downstream calls, request validation and backoff strategies, and monitoring/alerting for provisioning anomalies. **THR-024** - Frontend / CLI / Application Services - **Category:** Spoofing - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** High - **Risk Level:** High - **Description:** API keys or long-lived tokens exposed in frontend code, browser storage, or CLI configuration allow attackers to impersonate service accounts or users to perform privileged actions. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Avoid embedding long-lived credentials in frontends, use ephemeral tokens and refresh flows, store CLI credentials encrypted and recommend hardware-backed keys for CLI access, rotate keys frequently, and monitor for leaked tokens. **THR-025** - Application Services (APIs / Project Definitions) - **Category:** Tampering - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** High - **Risk Level:** High - **Description:** SQL injection or other code injection vulnerabilities in APIs allow attackers to manipulate database contents, execute arbitrary queries, or run code on backend services. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Use parameterized queries/ORMs, input validation and whitelisting, escape outputs, perform SAST and DAST testing, apply least-privilege DB accounts, and enable DB activity monitoring. **THR-026** - Data Layer / KMS - **Category:** Information Disclosure - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** High - **Risk Level:** High - **Description:** Misconfigured KMS or improper key usage (e.g., reuse of keys across tenants, improper access policies) leads to possible secret exfiltration or ability to decrypt sensitive data across tenants. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Use tenant-scoped keys or envelope encryption with per-tenant key separation, enforce strict IAM for key usage, log key usage and require approval for key exports, and perform periodic key policy audits. **THR-027** - Network / Project Isolation (Integration & Connectors) - **Category:** Elevation of Privilege - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** High - **Risk Level:** High - **Description:** Incorrect network segmentation or misapplied firewall/SDN rules allow an attacker to move laterally from one tenant/project environment to another, escalating privileges or accessing other tenants' workloads. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Implement strict network microsegmentation, use tenant-dedicated VLANs or overlay networks, perform regular network config audits, use SDN controllers with RBAC and change management, and monitor east-west traffic for anomalies. ### Medium Risk Threats **THR-001** - Edge Layer - **Category:** Spoofing - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** Medium - **Risk Level:** Medium - **Description:** Attacker spoofs client IPs or request headers to bypass IP-based ACLs or geofencing at the edge, gaining access to APIs or bypassing rate limits. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Enforce TLS mutual authentication and client cert validation where applicable, use authenticated session tokens rather than IP ACLs, employ upstream source IP validation (proxy protocol), implement WAF rules to detect header/IP spoofing and anomaly detection for suspicious source patterns. **THR-005** - Frontend Layer - **Category:** Tampering - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** Medium - **Risk Level:** Medium - **Description:** Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) attacks cause authenticated users to perform unauthorized actions (e.g., create/destroy resources, change policies) via browser-based requests. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Implement CSRF tokens for state-changing endpoints, require SameSite cookies, use proper CORS policy with preflight checks, and avoid unsafe HTTP methods without protection. **THR-016** - Integration & Connectors - **Category:** Information Disclosure - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** Medium - **Risk Level:** Medium - **Description:** Misconfigured connectors or overly permissive API calls expose inventory, topology or sensitive configuration data from customer infrastructure to unauthorized parties. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Apply least privilege to connectors, limit scope of inventory calls, mask or redact sensitive attributes in stored inventories, and require encryption in transit and at rest for connector data. **THR-020** - External Services (Email/SMS/Webhooks) - **Category:** Information Disclosure - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** Medium - **Risk Level:** Medium - **Description:** Notification payloads (email/SMS/webhook) leak sensitive information or PII to third parties, or are sent to compromised endpoints causing data exfiltration. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Avoid including secrets/PII in notifications, use redaction, encrypt webhook payloads and sign them, validate webhook endpoints on registration, and implement escalation policies that avoid exposing sensitive details. **THR-021** - External Services / Ticketing Integrations - **Category:** Tampering - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** Medium - **Risk Level:** Medium - **Description:** Third-party ticketing integrations or webhooks are compromised or misconfigured and are used to inject malicious content, alter ticket states or gain privileged platform information. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Harden third-party integrations with signed and authenticated webhooks, enforce minimal data sharing with external ticketing, implement input sanitization for ticket content, and maintain strict access controls for integration credentials. **THR-028** - Project Creation Requirement - **Category:** Tampering - **Likelihood:** Medium | **Impact:** Medium - **Risk Level:** Medium - **Description:** Business-logic abuse or race conditions allow attackers to bypass quota/resource checks during project creation (e.g., rapid create requests or manipulated parameters), leading to resource exhaustion or unauthorized project creation. - **Mitigation Strategy:** Validate resource availability atomically, perform server-side checks and optimistic locking or transactions for quota enforcement, rate-limit project creation per user/tenant, and require approval workflows for large resource allocations. **Total Threats:** 28 --- ## Appendix D: Complete Requirements Traceability Matrix This appendix provides complete end-to-end traceability from requirements through threats to controls and verification. ### Full Traceability Table | Req ID | Requirement | Category | Sensitivity | Threat IDs | Security Controls | Priority | Verification | Status | |--------|-------------|----------|-------------|------------|----------------|----------|--------------|--------| | REQ-001 | User registration and login through the portal wit... | Authentication | High | THR-003, THR-004, THR-005 +7 | [OWASP] V4 - Authentication Verification Requirements, [NIST] IA-2, [NIST] AC-2 +2 | Critical | Audit registration/de-registration records, review workflow documentation, and sample test user onboarding/offboarding for compliance., Review account management procedures, test account creation/modification/deactivation flows, and verify sessions are invalidated on deactivation. | Pending | | REQ-002 | Platform administrator registration and onboarding... | Authorization / Administration | High | THR-004, THR-006, THR-007 +5 | [NIST] AC-6, [ISO27001] A.9.4, [OWASP] V5 - Access Control Verification Requirements +1 | Critical | Review server-side authorization code, perform access control testing (role-based tests), and use automated tests to confirm enforcement., Inspect audit configuration, review samples of privileged action logs, and confirm logs include user, timestamp, action, and target. | Pending | | REQ-003 | Support registering users to one or more isolated ... | Project Management / Authorization | High | THR-004, THR-005, THR-006 +7 | None | Medium | Manual Review | Pending | | REQ-004 | Per-user, per-project policy customization allowin... | Policy Management | High | THR-001, THR-002, THR-006 +7 | [NIST] AC-3, [ISO27001] A.9.1, [OWASP] V5 - Access Control Verification Requirements | Critical | Test access enforcement across project boundaries, review policy decision points, and validate denied/allowed scenarios for different roles., Review access control policy documents and role matrices, check alignment with implemented access controls, and perform periodic reviews. | Pending | | REQ-005 | User-friendly cloud portal GUI to create, manage a... | User Experience / Administration | Medium | THR-003, THR-007, THR-021 +4 | None | Medium | Manual Review | Pending | | REQ-006 | Project creation workflow where registered users c... | Provisioning / Resource Management | High | THR-001, THR-002, THR-004 +7 | [NIST] PL-2, [ISO27001] A.8.1, [OWASP] V7 - Business Logic Verification Requirements | High | Inspect asset inventory, test project creation flows against inventory data, and review quota update transactions., Attempt project creation requests that exceed quotas, inspect enforcement logic, and review handling of concurrent provisioning attempts. | Pending | | REQ-007 | Cloud resource administration capability to deploy... | Infrastructure Provisioning | High | THR-003, THR-004, THR-005 +7 | [NIST] CM-2, [ISO27001] A.12.1, [OWASP] V7 - Business Logic Verification Requirements | Critical | Review baseline configuration documents, inspect deployed instances for compliance, and perform configuration drift scans., Review operational procedures, observe provisioning/decommissioning runs, and verify data sanitization after resource destruction. | Pending | | REQ-008 | Project credential and secrets management: per-pro... | Secrets Management / Data Protection | High | THR-001, THR-002, THR-006 +7 | [NIST] IA-5, [ISO27001] A.10.1, [OWASP] V6 - Sensitive Data Protection Verification Requirements | Critical | Review cryptographic policy, inspect encryption configurations, and validate key management practices (HSM/KMS use)., Inspect secret storage configuration, verify rotation schedules, and test revocation and access controls for secrets. | Pending | | REQ-009 | Strict multi-tenant project isolation across compu... | Multi-Tenancy / Network Security | High | THR-006, THR-007, THR-008 +7 | [NIST] SC-2, [ISO27001] A.13.1, [OWASP] V5 - Access Control Verification Requirements | Critical | Perform targeted tests for tenant isolation, inspect data access paths for tenant ID enforcement, and review caching/session partitioning., Review network configurations and policies, test for lateral movement between tenant segments, and monitor logs for cross-tenant flows. | Pending | | REQ-010 | Integrated monitoring and analytics for infrastruc... | Monitoring & Analytics | Medium | THR-004, THR-006, THR-007 +7 | [NIST] AU-6, [ISO27001] A.12.4, [OWASP] V10 - Logging and Monitoring Verification Requirements | High | Inspect logging configuration, check retention and log review procedures, and review alerts/dashboards produced by analytics., Review logging instrumentation, confirm central aggregation and secure transport, and test correlation across multiple data sources. | Pending | | REQ-011 | Automated AI-assisted fault detection and anomaly ... | Monitoring / Automation | Medium | THR-018 | [NIST] SI-4, [ISO27001] A.12.4, [OWASP] V10 - Logging and Monitoring Verification Requirements | High | Validate monitoring coverage, review detection model performance metrics, and test alerting workflows triggered by AI-detected events., Review data ingestion pipelines, validate event types fed into AI models, and inspect alerting logs and escalations. | Pending | | REQ-012 | Automated capacity warnings and thresholds per res... | Capacity Management | Medium | THR-005, THR-008, THR-014 +7 | [NIST] CM-8, [ISO27001] A.12.1, [OWASP] V10 - Logging and Monitoring Verification Requirements | High | Check metric endpoints and exported metrics, validate alert rules trigger under simulated load, and review alert history., Compare inventory against actual resources, test integration between inventory and capacity monitoring, and review generated warnings for accuracy. | Pending | | REQ-013 | Health and security system to run periodic and on-... | Security & Compliance | High | THR-004, THR-006, THR-007 +7 | [NIST] AU-6, [ISO27001] A.12.4, [OWASP] V10 - Logging and Monitoring Verification Requirements | High | Inspect logging configuration, check retention and log review procedures, and review alerts/dashboards produced by analytics., Review logging instrumentation, confirm central aggregation and secure transport, and test correlation across multiple data sources. | Pending | | REQ-014 | Automated notification system that flags security ... | Notifications / Incident Management | Medium | THR-004, THR-005, THR-006 +6 | [NIST] CM-8, [ISO27001] A.12.1, [OWASP] V10 - Logging and Monitoring Verification Requirements | High | Check metric endpoints and exported metrics, validate alert rules trigger under simulated load, and review alert history., Compare inventory against actual resources, test integration between inventory and capacity monitoring, and review generated warnings for accuracy. | Pending | | REQ-015 | Ticketing system integrated with user profiles, pr... | Support / ITSM | Medium | THR-002, THR-004, THR-005 +7 | [NIST] AC-6, [ISO27001] A.9.4, [OWASP] V5 - Access Control Verification Requirements +1 | Critical | Review server-side authorization code, perform access control testing (role-based tests), and use automated tests to confirm enforcement., Inspect audit configuration, review samples of privileged action logs, and confirm logs include user, timestamp, action, and target. | Pending | | REQ-016 | Platform administrators have read/write access to ... | Administration / Access Control | High | THR-001, THR-003, THR-006 +7 | [NIST] AC-6, [ISO27001] A.9.4, [OWASP] V5 - Access Control Verification Requirements +1 | Critical | Review server-side authorization code, perform access control testing (role-based tests), and use automated tests to confirm enforcement., Inspect audit configuration, review samples of privileged action logs, and confirm logs include user, timestamp, action, and target. | Pending | | REQ-017 | Audit logging of user actions, administrative oper... | Logging & Audit | High | THR-004, THR-005, THR-006 +7 | [NIST] AU-11, [ISO27001] A.12.4, [OWASP] V10 - Logging and Monitoring Verification Requirements | Critical | Inspect log retention configuration, review periodic log review records, and verify deletion/purge processes respect retention policy., Inspect log signing and immutability controls, attempt authorized/unauthorized modifications in test environments, and review access logs for log stores. | Pending | | REQ-018 | Role-based notification preferences and a portal d... | Notifications / UX | Low | THR-001, THR-002, THR-003 +7 | None | Medium | Manual Review | Pending | | REQ-019 | APIs and CLI endpoints for creating projects, prov... | Integration / Automation | High | THR-001, THR-004, THR-005 +7 | None | Medium | Manual Review | Pending | | REQ-020 | Data protection measures including encryption at r... | Data Protection | High | THR-001, THR-003, THR-004 +7 | None | Medium | Manual Review | Pending | | REQ-021 | Automated or semi-automated remediation actions (e... | Incident Response / Automation | High | THR-003, THR-005, THR-006 +7 | [NIST] IR-4, [ISO27001] A.16.1, [OWASP] V7 - Business Logic Verification Requirements | High | Test automated remediation in controlled environment, review playbook definitions, and verify logging of actions and rollbacks., Review safeguards in automation workflows, perform dry-run tests, and verify audit records and manual override controls function as intended. | Pending | | REQ-022 | Dashboards for platform-wide analytics accessible ... | Reporting / Analytics | Medium | THR-006, THR-007, THR-008 +7 | [NIST] AU-2, [ISO27001] A.12.4, [OWASP] V10 - Logging and Monitoring Verification Requirements | High | Review audit event catalog, verify dashboard inclusion of privileged events, and test role-based access to dashboards., Inspect logs feeding dashboards, test access controls on dashboards, and review retention/tamper-evidence controls. | Pending | | REQ-023 | Support for compliance and reporting: generate acc... | Compliance / Reporting | High | THR-001, THR-003, THR-006 +7 | [ISO27001] A.18.1, [NIST] AU-8, [OWASP] V10 - Logging and Monitoring Verification Requirements | High | Check NTP/synchronization configs, review timestamps in sample logs, and test cross-region event correlation., Review compliance mappings, check data localization controls in configuration, and validate that exportable reports/logs meet regulatory needs. | Pending | | REQ-024 | Integration points for existing infrastructure: co... | Integration / Interoperability | Medium | THR-006, THR-014, THR-015 +7 | None | Medium | Manual Review | Pending | | REQ-025 | Operational policies and controls such as role-bas... | Operations / Governance | Medium | THR-005, THR-006, THR-008 +5 | None | Medium | Manual Review | Pending | **Total Requirements Tracked:** 25 ### Detailed Requirement Mappings The following section provides detailed traceability for each requirement: #### REQ-001: User registration and login through the portal with secure password policies, account verification, ... **Related Threats:** - **THR-003**: Persistent or reflected XSS in the web SPA allows attackers to steal UI session ... - **THR-004**: Misconfigured OAuth2/OIDC SSO or insecure token validation allows an attacker to... - **THR-005**: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) attacks cause authenticated users to perform u... - **THR-006**: Credential theft (phishing, credential stuffing) or weak password policies allow... - **THR-007**: Broken or mis-implemented RBAC allows lower-privilege users to escalate to proje... - *...and 5 more threats* **Security Controls:** - **[OWASP] V4 - Authentication Verification Requirements**: [OWASP] Verify that passwords are stored using a strong adaptive hashing function (e.g.,... - **[NIST] IA-2**: [NIST] The information system uniquely identifies and authenticates organizational user... - **[NIST] AC-2**: [NIST] The information system manages information system accounts, including establishi... - **[ISO27001] A.9.2**: [ISO27001] A formal user registration and de-registration process should be implemented to ... - **[OWASP] V2 - Session Management Verification Requirements**: [OWASP] Verify that sessions are expired after a sensible period of inactivity and absol... **Verification:** Audit registration/de-registration records, review workflow documentation, and sample test user onboarding/offboarding for compliance., Review account management procedures, test account creation/modification/deactivation flows, and verify sessions are invalidated on deactivation., Test authentication flows to confirm unique IDs are enforced; review identity store for uniqueness; inspect authentication logs for correct mapping of identities., Inspect session configuration, perform tests to confirm timeout behavior, and review token lifetimes and cookie flags in headers., Review code or configuration showing adaptive hashing use; verify salts and work factor values; perform static analysis and inspect password storage in a test database. **Priority:** Critical | **Status:** Pending --- #### REQ-002: Platform administrator registration and onboarding with elevated role provisioning, just-in-time adm... **Related Threats:** - **THR-004**: Misconfigured OAuth2/OIDC SSO or insecure token validation allows an attacker to... - **THR-006**: Credential theft (phishing, credential stuffing) or weak password policies allow... - **THR-007**: Broken or mis-implemented RBAC allows lower-privilege users to escalate to proje... - **THR-008**: Unauthorized modification of project policies, quotas or provisioning requests t... - **THR-013**: A compromised service account or admin deletes or forges audit entries, preventi... - *...and 3 more threats* **Security Controls:** - **[NIST] AC-6**: [NIST] The information system enforces the most restrictive set of rights/privileges or... - **[ISO27001] A.9.4**: [ISO27001] Access to systems and applications should be restricted based on the access cont... - **[OWASP] V5 - Access Control Verification Requirements**: [OWASP] Verify that access control checks are performed on the server side for all funct... - **[NIST] AU-2**: [NIST] The information system determines and documents the types of events that the sys... **Verification:** Review server-side authorization code, perform access control testing (role-based tests), and use automated tests to confirm enforcement., Inspect audit configuration, review samples of privileged action logs, and confirm logs include user, timestamp, action, and target., Review role definitions, test that admin accounts cannot perform non-authorized actions, and inspect privilege escalation controls and logs., Review access control policy, test administrative access restrictions, and verify MFA enforcement for admin accounts. **Priority:** Critical | **Status:** Pending --- #### REQ-003: Support registering users to one or more isolated project spaces with the ability to assign roles (l... **Related Threats:** - **THR-004**: Misconfigured OAuth2/OIDC SSO or insecure token validation allows an attacker to... - **THR-005**: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) attacks cause authenticated users to perform u... - **THR-006**: Credential theft (phishing, credential stuffing) or weak password policies allow... - **THR-007**: Broken or mis-implemented RBAC allows lower-privilege users to escalate to proje... - **THR-008**: Unauthorized modification of project policies, quotas or provisioning requests t... - *...and 5 more threats* **Verification:** Manual Review **Priority:** Medium | **Status:** Pending --- #### REQ-004: Per-user, per-project policy customization allowing override of default role policies, constraints o... **Related Threats:** - **THR-001**: Attacker spoofs client IPs or request headers to bypass IP-based ACLs or geofenc... - **THR-002**: Man-in-the-middle (MITM) or tampering between edge TLS termination and internal ... - **THR-006**: Credential theft (phishing, credential stuffing) or weak password policies allow... - **THR-007**: Broken or mis-implemented RBAC allows lower-privilege users to escalate to proje... - **THR-008**: Unauthorized modification of project policies, quotas or provisioning requests t... - *...and 5 more threats* **Security Controls:** - **[NIST] AC-3**: [NIST] The information system enforces approved authorizations for logical access to in... - **[ISO27001] A.9.1**: [ISO27001] Access control policy should be established, documented and reviewed based on bu... - **[OWASP] V5 - Access Control Verification Requirements**: [OWASP] Verify that role-based access control is implemented correctly and that role mem... **Verification:** Test access enforcement across project boundaries, review policy decision points, and validate denied/allowed scenarios for different roles., Review access control policy documents and role matrices, check alignment with implemented access controls, and perform periodic reviews., Review role assignment workflows, inspect role permission data, and perform tests to ensure proper enforcement and isolation between projects. **Priority:** Critical | **Status:** Pending --- #### REQ-005: User-friendly cloud portal GUI to create, manage and administer projects, with role-based content re... **Related Threats:** - **THR-003**: Persistent or reflected XSS in the web SPA allows attackers to steal UI session ... - **THR-007**: Broken or mis-implemented RBAC allows lower-privilege users to escalate to proje... - **THR-021**: Third-party ticketing integrations or webhooks are compromised or misconfigured ... - **THR-022**: Large-scale DDoS attack saturates the edge WAF/load balancer or upstream resourc... - **THR-025**: SQL injection or other code injection vulnerabilities in APIs allow attackers to... - *...and 2 more threats* **Verification:** Manual Review **Priority:** Medium | **Status:** Pending --- #### REQ-006: Project creation workflow where registered users can request and create projects, define quotas, req... **Related Threats:** - **THR-001**: Attacker spoofs client IPs or request headers to bypass IP-based ACLs or geofenc... - **THR-002**: Man-in-the-middle (MITM) or tampering between edge TLS termination and internal ... - **THR-004**: Misconfigured OAuth2/OIDC SSO or insecure token validation allows an attacker to... - **THR-005**: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) attacks cause authenticated users to perform u... - **THR-006**: Credential theft (phishing, credential stuffing) or weak password policies allow... - *...and 5 more threats* **Security Controls:** - **[NIST] PL-2**: [NIST] Develop, document, and disseminate system and communications protection policy a... - **[ISO27001] A.8.1**: [ISO27001] Assets associated with information and information processing facilities should ... - **[OWASP] V7 - Business Logic Verification Requirements**: [OWASP] Verify that the application enforces resource limits and quotas to prevent abuse... **Verification:** Inspect asset inventory, test project creation flows against inventory data, and review quota update transactions., Attempt project creation requests that exceed quotas, inspect enforcement logic, and review handling of concurrent provisioning attempts., Review documented procedures, inspect automation enforcing quota checks, and perform provision-request tests that exceed quotas to confirm denial. **Priority:** High | **Status:** Pending --- #### REQ-007: Cloud resource administration capability to deploy, configure, scale and destroy VNFs, CNFs, applica... **Related Threats:** - **THR-003**: Persistent or reflected XSS in the web SPA allows attackers to steal UI session ... - **THR-004**: Misconfigured OAuth2/OIDC SSO or insecure token validation allows an attacker to... - **THR-005**: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) attacks cause authenticated users to perform u... - **THR-006**: Credential theft (phishing, credential stuffing) or weak password policies allow... - **THR-007**: Broken or mis-implemented RBAC allows lower-privilege users to escalate to proje... - *...and 5 more threats* **Security Controls:** - **[NIST] CM-2**: [NIST] Develop, document, and maintain under configuration control, a current baseline ... - **[ISO27001] A.12.1**: [ISO27001] Operating procedures should be documented, maintained and made available to all ... - **[OWASP] V7 - Business Logic Verification Requirements**: [OWASP] Verify that state transitions and business transactions are handled correctly to... **Verification:** Review baseline configuration documents, inspect deployed instances for compliance, and perform configuration drift scans., Review operational procedures, observe provisioning/decommissioning runs, and verify data sanitization after resource destruction., Conduct concurrency and failure-injection tests on provisioning APIs and review orchestration logs for proper rollback and state transitions. **Priority:** Critical | **Status:** Pending --- #### REQ-008: Project credential and secrets management: per-project credential stores, role-limited access to sec... **Related Threats:** - **THR-001**: Attacker spoofs client IPs or request headers to bypass IP-based ACLs or geofenc... - **THR-002**: Man-in-the-middle (MITM) or tampering between edge TLS termination and internal ... - **THR-006**: Credential theft (phishing, credential stuffing) or weak password policies allow... - **THR-007**: Broken or mis-implemented RBAC allows lower-privilege users to escalate to proje... - **THR-008**: Unauthorized modification of project policies, quotas or provisioning requests t... - *...and 5 more threats* **Security Controls:** - **[NIST] IA-5**: [NIST] The organization manages information system authenticators (e.g., passwords, tok... - **[ISO27001] A.10.1**: [ISO27001] A policy on the use of cryptographic controls for protection of information shou... - **[OWASP] V6 - Sensitive Data Protection Verification Requirements**: [OWASP] Verify that application secrets and credentials are stored securely using an app... **Verification:** Review cryptographic policy, inspect encryption configurations, and validate key management practices (HSM/KMS use)., Inspect secret storage configuration, verify rotation schedules, and test revocation and access controls for secrets., Perform secret scanning in code repositories, inspect runtime retrieval from secret manager, and verify no credentials are in source. **Priority:** Critical | **Status:** Pending --- #### REQ-009: Strict multi-tenant project isolation across compute, network (segmentation), storage and management... **Related Threats:** - **THR-006**: Credential theft (phishing, credential stuffing) or weak password policies allow... - **THR-007**: Broken or mis-implemented RBAC allows lower-privilege users to escalate to proje... - **THR-008**: Unauthorized modification of project policies, quotas or provisioning requests t... - **THR-010**: Cross-tenant data leakage through application bugs, caching misconfigurations, t... - **THR-015**: Malicious or misrouted orchestration commands from connectors or compromised orc... - *...and 5 more threats* **Security Controls:** - **[NIST] SC-2**: [NIST] The system partitions user functionality and data to separate users and prevent ... - **[ISO27001] A.13.1**: [ISO27001] Networks should be managed and controlled to protect information in systems and ... - **[OWASP] V5 - Access Control Verification Requirements**: [OWASP] Verify that multi-tenant applications enforce strict logical separation between ... **Verification:** Perform targeted tests for tenant isolation, inspect data access paths for tenant ID enforcement, and review caching/session partitioning., Review network configurations and policies, test for lateral movement between tenant segments, and monitor logs for cross-tenant flows., Penetration tests for cross-tenant access, review segmentation rules, and verify that storage and compute isolation controls are enforced. **Priority:** Critical | **Status:** Pending --- #### REQ-010: Integrated monitoring and analytics for infrastructure, network, and application metrics with multi-... **Related Threats:** - **THR-004**: Misconfigured OAuth2/OIDC SSO or insecure token validation allows an attacker to... - **THR-006**: Credential theft (phishing, credential stuffing) or weak password policies allow... - **THR-007**: Broken or mis-implemented RBAC allows lower-privilege users to escalate to proje... - **THR-008**: Unauthorized modification of project policies, quotas or provisioning requests t... - **THR-009**: Insufficient or tamperable audit logs allow malicious actors to repudiate action... - *...and 5 more threats* **Security Controls:** - **[NIST] AU-6**: [NIST] The organization reviews and analyzes information system audit records and repor... - **[ISO27001] A.12.4**: [ISO27001] Event logs recording user activities, exceptions and information security events... - **[OWASP] V10 - Logging and Monitoring Verification Requirements**: [OWASP] Verify that the application produces sufficient logging and that logs are aggreg... **Verification:** Inspect logging configuration, check retention and log review procedures, and review alerts/dashboards produced by analytics., Review logging instrumentation, confirm central aggregation and secure transport, and test correlation across multiple data sources., Verify log aggregation, review analytics rules, and check incident reports generated from monitoring outputs. **Priority:** High | **Status:** Pending --- #### REQ-011: Automated AI-assisted fault detection and anomaly detection with configurable sensitivity, explainab... **Related Threats:** - **THR-018**: Adversarial input or poisoning of metrics/telemetry to confuse the AI anomaly en... **Security Controls:** - **[NIST] SI-4**: [NIST] The organization monitors the information system to detect attacks and indicator... - **[ISO27001] A.12.4**: [ISO27001] Event logs recording user activities, exceptions and information security events... - **[OWASP] V10 - Logging and Monitoring Verification Requirements**: [OWASP] Verify that the application integrates with alerting and incident response syste... **Verification:** Validate monitoring coverage, review detection model performance metrics, and test alerting workflows triggered by AI-detected events., Review data ingestion pipelines, validate event types fed into AI models, and inspect alerting logs and escalations., Trigger synthetic faults to validate alert generation and workflow integration, and review alert contents for sufficient context. **Priority:** High | **Status:** Pending --- #### REQ-012: Automated capacity warnings and thresholds per resource type and per project, with proactive notific... **Related Threats:** - **THR-005**: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) attacks cause authenticated users to perform u... - **THR-008**: Unauthorized modification of project policies, quotas or provisioning requests t... - **THR-014**: Compromise of integration/connector credentials (API keys, service accounts) per... - **THR-018**: Adversarial input or poisoning of metrics/telemetry to confuse the AI anomaly en... - **THR-020**: Notification payloads (email/SMS/webhook) leak sensitive information or PII to t... - *...and 5 more threats* **Security Controls:** - **[NIST] CM-8**: [NIST] The organization develops and maintains an inventory of information system compo... - **[ISO27001] A.12.1**: [ISO27001] Operating procedures should be documented, maintained and made available to all ... - **[OWASP] V10 - Logging and Monitoring Verification Requirements**: [OWASP] Verify that the application exposes necessary metrics and integrates with monito... **Verification:** Check metric endpoints and exported metrics, validate alert rules trigger under simulated load, and review alert history., Compare inventory against actual resources, test integration between inventory and capacity monitoring, and review generated warnings for accuracy., Review procedures and threshold definitions, test automated warnings by simulating high utilization, and review escalation logs. **Priority:** High | **Status:** Pending --- #### REQ-013: Health and security system to run periodic and on-demand checks (vulnerability scans, configuration ... **Related Threats:** - **THR-004**: Misconfigured OAuth2/OIDC SSO or insecure token validation allows an attacker to... - **THR-006**: Credential theft (phishing, credential stuffing) or weak password policies allow... - **THR-007**: Broken or mis-implemented RBAC allows lower-privilege users to escalate to proje... - **THR-008**: Unauthorized modification of project policies, quotas or provisioning requests t... - **THR-009**: Insufficient or tamperable audit logs allow malicious actors to repudiate action... - *...and 5 more threats* **Security Controls:** - **[NIST] AU-6**: [NIST] The organization reviews and analyzes information system audit records and repor... - **[ISO27001] A.12.4**: [ISO27001] Event logs recording user activities, exceptions and information security events... - **[OWASP] V10 - Logging and Monitoring Verification Requirements**: [OWASP] Verify that the application produces sufficient logging and that logs are aggreg... **Verification:** Inspect logging configuration, check retention and log review procedures, and review alerts/dashboards produced by analytics., Review logging instrumentation, confirm central aggregation and secure transport, and test correlation across multiple data sources., Verify log aggregation, review analytics rules, and check incident reports generated from monitoring outputs. **Priority:** High | **Status:** Pending --- #### REQ-014: Automated notification system that flags security risks, vulnerabilities, capacity warnings and oper... **Related Threats:** - **THR-004**: Misconfigured OAuth2/OIDC SSO or insecure token validation allows an attacker to... - **THR-005**: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) attacks cause authenticated users to perform u... - **THR-006**: Credential theft (phishing, credential stuffing) or weak password policies allow... - **THR-007**: Broken or mis-implemented RBAC allows lower-privilege users to escalate to proje... - **THR-017**: Telemetry, logs or metrics inadvertently contain sensitive information (credenti... - *...and 4 more threats* **Security Controls:** - **[NIST] CM-8**: [NIST] The organization develops and maintains an inventory of information system compo... - **[ISO27001] A.12.1**: [ISO27001] Operating procedures should be documented, maintained and made available to all ... - **[OWASP] V10 - Logging and Monitoring Verification Requirements**: [OWASP] Verify that the application exposes necessary metrics and integrates with monito... **Verification:** Check metric endpoints and exported metrics, validate alert rules trigger under simulated load, and review alert history., Compare inventory against actual resources, test integration between inventory and capacity monitoring, and review generated warnings for accuracy., Review procedures and threshold definitions, test automated warnings by simulating high utilization, and review escalation logs. **Priority:** High | **Status:** Pending --- #### REQ-015: Ticketing system integrated with user profiles, project contexts and platform admin workflows allowi... **Related Threats:** - **THR-002**: Man-in-the-middle (MITM) or tampering between edge TLS termination and internal ... - **THR-004**: Misconfigured OAuth2/OIDC SSO or insecure token validation allows an attacker to... - **THR-005**: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) attacks cause authenticated users to perform u... - **THR-006**: Credential theft (phishing, credential stuffing) or weak password policies allow... - **THR-007**: Broken or mis-implemented RBAC allows lower-privilege users to escalate to proje... - *...and 5 more threats* **Security Controls:** - **[NIST] AC-6**: [NIST] The information system enforces the most restrictive set of rights/privileges or... - **[ISO27001] A.9.4**: [ISO27001] Access to systems and applications should be restricted based on the access cont... - **[OWASP] V5 - Access Control Verification Requirements**: [OWASP] Verify that access control checks are performed on the server side for all funct... - **[NIST] AU-2**: [NIST] The information system determines and documents the types of events that the sys... **Verification:** Review server-side authorization code, perform access control testing (role-based tests), and use automated tests to confirm enforcement., Inspect audit configuration, review samples of privileged action logs, and confirm logs include user, timestamp, action, and target., Review role definitions, test that admin accounts cannot perform non-authorized actions, and inspect privilege escalation controls and logs., Review access control policy, test administrative access restrictions, and verify MFA enforcement for admin accounts. **Priority:** Critical | **Status:** Pending --- #### REQ-016: Platform administrators have read/write access to all projects for support operations, constrained b... **Related Threats:** - **THR-001**: Attacker spoofs client IPs or request headers to bypass IP-based ACLs or geofenc... - **THR-003**: Persistent or reflected XSS in the web SPA allows attackers to steal UI session ... - **THR-006**: Credential theft (phishing, credential stuffing) or weak password policies allow... - **THR-007**: Broken or mis-implemented RBAC allows lower-privilege users to escalate to proje... - **THR-009**: Insufficient or tamperable audit logs allow malicious actors to repudiate action... - *...and 5 more threats* **Security Controls:** - **[NIST] AC-6**: [NIST] The information system enforces the most restrictive set of rights/privileges or... - **[ISO27001] A.9.4**: [ISO27001] Access to systems and applications should be restricted based on the access cont... - **[OWASP] V5 - Access Control Verification Requirements**: [OWASP] Verify that access control checks are performed on the server side for all funct... - **[NIST] AU-2**: [NIST] The information system determines and documents the types of events that the sys... **Verification:** Review server-side authorization code, perform access control testing (role-based tests), and use automated tests to confirm enforcement., Inspect audit configuration, review samples of privileged action logs, and confirm logs include user, timestamp, action, and target., Review role definitions, test that admin accounts cannot perform non-authorized actions, and inspect privilege escalation controls and logs., Review access control policy, test administrative access restrictions, and verify MFA enforcement for admin accounts. **Priority:** Critical | **Status:** Pending --- #### REQ-017: Audit logging of user actions, administrative operations, provisioning events, policy changes, secur... **Related Threats:** - **THR-004**: Misconfigured OAuth2/OIDC SSO or insecure token validation allows an attacker to... - **THR-005**: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) attacks cause authenticated users to perform u... - **THR-006**: Credential theft (phishing, credential stuffing) or weak password policies allow... - **THR-007**: Broken or mis-implemented RBAC allows lower-privilege users to escalate to proje... - **THR-008**: Unauthorized modification of project policies, quotas or provisioning requests t... - *...and 5 more threats* **Security Controls:** - **[NIST] AU-11**: [NIST] The organization retains audit records for a defined time period to provide supp... - **[ISO27001] A.12.4**: [ISO27001] Event logs recording user activities, exceptions and information security events... - **[OWASP] V10 - Logging and Monitoring Verification Requirements**: [OWASP] Verify that logs are protected from tampering, including secure transmission, st... **Verification:** Inspect log retention configuration, review periodic log review records, and verify deletion/purge processes respect retention policy., Inspect log signing and immutability controls, attempt authorized/unauthorized modifications in test environments, and review access logs for log stores., Review retention policies, inspect storage configurations for immutability, and verify retention via sample logs spanning required periods. **Priority:** Critical | **Status:** Pending --- #### REQ-018: Role-based notification preferences and a portal dashboard listing all notifications relevant to the... **Related Threats:** - **THR-001**: Attacker spoofs client IPs or request headers to bypass IP-based ACLs or geofenc... - **THR-002**: Man-in-the-middle (MITM) or tampering between edge TLS termination and internal ... - **THR-003**: Persistent or reflected XSS in the web SPA allows attackers to steal UI session ... - **THR-004**: Misconfigured OAuth2/OIDC SSO or insecure token validation allows an attacker to... - **THR-005**: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) attacks cause authenticated users to perform u... - *...and 5 more threats* **Verification:** Manual Review **Priority:** Medium | **Status:** Pending --- #### REQ-019: APIs and CLI endpoints for creating projects, provisioning resources, querying monitoring data, mana... **Related Threats:** - **THR-001**: Attacker spoofs client IPs or request headers to bypass IP-based ACLs or geofenc... - **THR-004**: Misconfigured OAuth2/OIDC SSO or insecure token validation allows an attacker to... - **THR-005**: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) attacks cause authenticated users to perform u... - **THR-006**: Credential theft (phishing, credential stuffing) or weak password policies allow... - **THR-007**: Broken or mis-implemented RBAC allows lower-privilege users to escalate to proje... - *...and 5 more threats* **Verification:** Manual Review **Priority:** Medium | **Status:** Pending --- #### REQ-020: Data protection measures including encryption at rest and in transit, role-limited access to telemet... **Related Threats:** - **THR-001**: Attacker spoofs client IPs or request headers to bypass IP-based ACLs or geofenc... - **THR-003**: Persistent or reflected XSS in the web SPA allows attackers to steal UI session ... - **THR-004**: Misconfigured OAuth2/OIDC SSO or insecure token validation allows an attacker to... - **THR-005**: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) attacks cause authenticated users to perform u... - **THR-006**: Credential theft (phishing, credential stuffing) or weak password policies allow... - *...and 5 more threats* **Verification:** Manual Review **Priority:** Medium | **Status:** Pending --- *Showing detailed mappings for 20 of 25 requirements.* --- ## Appendix E: References - [OWASP ASVS 5.0](https://owasp.org/www-project-application-security-verification-standard/) - [NIST Cybersecurity Framework](https://www.nist.gov/cyberframework) - [ISO/IEC 27001:2022](https://www.iso.org/standard/27001) - [OWASP Top 10](https://owasp.org/www-project-top-ten/) - [MITRE ATT&CK Framework](https://attack.mitre.org/) --- *End of Report - Generated by Security Requirements Analysis System v2.0* *Generated: 2025-11-19 15:16:52*